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。

即使我知道我的编译器足够聪明，我也不喜欢依赖它，而是使用a)变体。

b)变体对我来说只有当你迫切需要使intermediateResult在循环体之后不可用时才有意义。但我无法想象这种绝望的情况，无论如何....

编辑:Jon Skeet提出了一个非常好的观点，表明在循环中声明变量可以产生实际的语义差异。

这是个有趣的问题。从我的经验来看，当你为代码争论这个问题时，有一个终极问题需要考虑:

为什么变量需要是全局的?

It makes sense to only declare the variable once, globally, as opposed to many times locally, because it is better for organizing the code and requires less lines of code. However, if it only needs to be declared locally within one method, I would initialize it in that method so it is clear that the variable is exclusively relevant to that method. Be careful not to call this variable outside the method in which it is initialized if you choose the latter option--your code won't know what you're talking about and will report an error.

另外，作为旁注，不要在不同的方法之间重复局部变量名，即使它们的目的几乎相同;这让人很困惑。

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.

好吧，你可以为它设定一个范围:

{ //Or if(true) if the language doesn't support making scopes like this
    double intermediateResult;
    for (int i=0; i<1000; i++) {
        intermediateResult = i;
        System.out.println(intermediateResult);
    }
}

这样你只声明了变量一次，当你离开循环时它就死了。