很长一段时间我都有同样的问题。所以我测试了一段更简单的代码。

结论:对于此类病例，两组间无显著性差异。

外环箱

int intermediateResult;
for(int i=0; i < 1000; i++){
    intermediateResult = i+2;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

内环箱

for(int i=0; i < 1000; i++){
    int intermediateResult = i+2;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

我检查了IntelliJ的反编译器上的编译文件，对于这两种情况，我得到了相同的Test.class

for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
    int intermediateResult = i + 2;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

我还使用这个答案中给出的方法对这两种情况的代码进行了反汇编。我将只展示与答案相关的部分

外环箱

Code:
  stack=2, locals=3, args_size=1
     0: iconst_0
     1: istore_2
     2: iload_2
     3: sipush        1000
     6: if_icmpge     26
     9: iload_2
    10: iconst_2
    11: iadd
    12: istore_1
    13: getstatic     #2                  // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
    16: iload_1
    17: invokevirtual #3                  // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(I)V
    20: iinc          2, 1
    23: goto          2
    26: return
LocalVariableTable:
        Start  Length  Slot  Name   Signature
           13      13     1 intermediateResult   I
            2      24     2     i   I
            0      27     0  args   [Ljava/lang/String;

内环箱

Code:
      stack=2, locals=3, args_size=1
         0: iconst_0
         1: istore_1
         2: iload_1
         3: sipush        1000
         6: if_icmpge     26
         9: iload_1
        10: iconst_2
        11: iadd
        12: istore_2
        13: getstatic     #2                  // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
        16: iload_2
        17: invokevirtual #3                  // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(I)V
        20: iinc          1, 1
        23: goto          2
        26: return
      LocalVariableTable:
        Start  Length  Slot  Name   Signature
           13       7     2 intermediateResult   I
            2      24     1     i   I
            0      27     0  args   [Ljava/lang/String;

如果您仔细注意，在LocalVariableTable中，只有分配给i和intermediateResult的Slot会根据它们的出现顺序进行交换。slot中的相同差异也反映在其他代码行中。

当前无额外操作 在这两种情况下，intermediateResult仍然是一个局部变量，因此访问时间没有差异。

奖金

编译器做了大量的优化，看看在这种情况下发生了什么。

零工作情况

for(int i=0; i < 1000; i++){
    int intermediateResult = i;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

零工作反编译

for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
    System.out.println(i);
}

这取决于语言和确切的用法。例如，在c# 1中，这没有什么区别。在c# 2中，如果局部变量是通过匿名方法(或c# 3中的lambda表达式)捕获的，则会产生非常显著的差异。

例子:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;

class Test
{
    static void Main()
    {
        List<Action> actions = new List<Action>();

        int outer;
        for (int i=0; i < 10; i++)
        {
            outer = i;
            int inner = i;
            actions.Add(() => Console.WriteLine("Inner={0}, Outer={1}", inner, outer));
        }

        foreach (Action action in actions)
        {
            action();
        }
    }
}

输出:

Inner=0, Outer=9
Inner=1, Outer=9
Inner=2, Outer=9
Inner=3, Outer=9
Inner=4, Outer=9
Inner=5, Outer=9
Inner=6, Outer=9
Inner=7, Outer=9
Inner=8, Outer=9
Inner=9, Outer=9

不同之处在于，所有的操作都捕获相同的外部变量，但每个操作都有自己独立的内部变量。

这是VB.NET的一个陷阱。在这个例子中，Visual Basic的结果不会重新初始化变量:

For i as Integer = 1 to 100
    Dim j as Integer
    Console.WriteLine(j)
    j = i
Next

' Output: 0 1 2 3 4...

第一次输出0 (Visual Basic变量声明时有默认值!)，之后每次输出i。

如果你加上a = 0，你可能会得到你所期望的:

For i as Integer = 1 to 100
    Dim j as Integer = 0
    Console.WriteLine(j)
    j = i
Next

'Output: 0 0 0 0 0...

A)比B).........更安全想象一下，如果你在循环中初始化结构而不是'int'或'float'然后呢?

就像

typedef struct loop_example{

JXTZ hi; // where JXTZ could be another type...say closed source lib 
         // you include in Makefile

}loop_example_struct;

//then....

int j = 0; // declare here or face c99 error if in loop - depends on compiler setting

for ( ;j++; )
{
   loop_example loop_object; // guess the result in memory heap?
}

您肯定会遇到内存泄漏的问题!因此，我认为“A”是更安全的赌注，而“B”是容易受到内存积累的影响，特别是工作在近源库中。你可以在Linux上使用“Valgrind”工具检查，特别是子工具“Helgrind”。

以下是我在。net中编写和编译的内容。

double r0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    r0 = i*i;
    Console.WriteLine(r0);
}

for (int j = 0; j < 1000; j++) {
    double r1 = j*j;
    Console.WriteLine(r1);
}

这是我从。net Reflector中得到的，当CIL被渲染回代码时。

for (int i = 0; i < 0x3e8; i++)
{
    double r0 = i * i;
    Console.WriteLine(r0);
}
for (int j = 0; j < 0x3e8; j++)
{
    double r1 = j * j;
    Console.WriteLine(r1);
}

So both look exactly same after compilation. In managed languages code is converted into CL/byte code and at time of execution it's converted into machine language. So in machine language a double may not even be created on the stack. It may just be a register as code reflect that it is a temporary variable for WriteLine function. There are a whole set optimization rules just for loops. So the average guy shouldn't be worried about it, especially in managed languages. There are cases when you can optimize manage code, for example, if you have to concatenate a large number of strings using just string a; a+=anotherstring[i] vs using StringBuilder. There is very big difference in performance between both. There are a lot of such cases where the compiler cannot optimize your code, because it cannot figure out what is intended in a bigger scope. But it can pretty much optimize basic things for you.

当我想在退出循环后查看变量的内容时，我使用(A)。它只与调试有关。当我希望代码更紧凑时，我使用(B)，因为它节省了一行代码。