Declaring variables inside loops, good practice or bad practice?

This is excellent practice.

By creating variables inside loops, you ensure their scope is restricted to inside the loop. It cannot be referenced nor called outside of the loop.

This way:

If the name of the variable is a bit "generic" (like "i"), there is no risk to mix it with another variable of same name somewhere later in your code (can also be mitigated using the -Wshadow warning instruction on GCC)

The compiler knows that the variable scope is limited to inside the loop, and therefore will issue a proper error message if the variable is by mistake referenced elsewhere.

Last but not least, some dedicated optimization can be performed more efficiently by the compiler (most importantly register allocation), since it knows that the variable cannot be used outside of the loop. For example, no need to store the result for later re-use.

In short, you are right to do it.

Note however that the variable is not supposed to retain its value between each loop. In such case, you may need to initialize it every time. You can also create a larger block, encompassing the loop, whose sole purpose is to declare variables which must retain their value from one loop to another. This typically includes the loop counter itself.

{
    int i, retainValue;
    for (i=0; i<N; i++)
    {
       int tmpValue;
       /* tmpValue is uninitialized */
       /* retainValue still has its previous value from previous loop */

       /* Do some stuff here */
    }
    /* Here, retainValue is still valid; tmpValue no longer */
}

For question #2: The variable is allocated once, when the function is called. In fact, from an allocation perspective, it is (nearly) the same as declaring the variable at the beginning of the function. The only difference is the scope: the variable cannot be used outside of the loop. It may even be possible that the variable is not allocated, just re-using some free slot (from other variable whose scope has ended).

With restricted and more precise scope come more accurate optimizations. But more importantly, it makes your code safer, with less states (i.e. variables) to worry about when reading other parts of the code.

This is true even outside of an if(){...} block. Typically, instead of :

    int result;
    (...)
    result = f1();
    if (result) then { (...) }
    (...)
    result = f2();
    if (result) then { (...) }

it's safer to write :

    (...)
    {
        int const result = f1();
        if (result) then { (...) }
    }
    (...)
    {
        int const result = f2();
        if (result) then { (...) }
    }

The difference may seem minor, especially on such a small example. But on a larger code base, it will help : now there is no risk to transport some result value from f1() to f2() block. Each result is strictly limited to its own scope, making its role more accurate. From a reviewer perspective, it's much nicer, since he has less long range state variables to worry about and track.

Even the compiler will help better : assuming that, in the future, after some erroneous change of code, result is not properly initialized with f2(). The second version will simply refuse to work, stating a clear error message at compile time (way better than run time). The first version will not spot anything, the result of f1() will simply be tested a second time, being confused for the result of f2().

Complementary information

The open-source tool CppCheck (a static analysis tool for C/C++ code) provides some excellent hints regarding optimal scope of variables.

In response to comment on allocation: The above rule is true in C, but might not be for some C++ classes.

For standard types and structures, the size of variable is known at compilation time. There is no such thing as "construction" in C, so the space for the variable will simply be allocated into the stack (without any initialization), when the function is called. That's why there is a "zero" cost when declaring the variable inside a loop.

However, for C++ classes, there is this constructor thing which I know much less about. I guess allocation is probably not going to be the issue, since the compiler shall be clever enough to reuse the same space, but the initialization is likely to take place at each loop iteration.

---

Generally, it's a very good practice to keep it very close.

In some cases, there will be a consideration such as performance which justifies pulling the variable out of the loop.

In your example, the program creates and destroys the string each time. Some libraries use a small string optimization (SSO), so the dynamic allocation could be avoided in some cases.

Suppose you wanted to avoid those redundant creations/allocations, you would write it as:

for (int counter = 0; counter <= 10; counter++) {
   // compiler can pull this out
   const char testing[] = "testing";
   cout << testing;
}

or you can pull the constant out:

const std::string testing = "testing";
for (int counter = 0; counter <= 10; counter++) {
   cout << testing;
}

Do most compilers realize that the variable has already been declared and just skip that portion, or does it actually create a spot for it in memory each time?

It can reuse the space the variable consumes, and it can pull invariants out of your loop. In the case of the const char array (above) - that array could be pulled out. However, the constructor and destructor must be executed at each iteration in the case of an object (such as std::string). In the case of the std::string, that 'space' includes a pointer which contains the dynamic allocation representing the characters. So this:

for (int counter = 0; counter <= 10; counter++) {
   string testing = "testing";
   cout << testing;
}

would require redundant copying in each case, and dynamic allocation and free if the variable sits above the threshold for SSO character count (and SSO is implemented by your std library).

Doing this:

string testing;
for (int counter = 0; counter <= 10; counter++) {
   testing = "testing";
   cout << testing;
}

would still require a physical copy of the characters at each iteration, but the form could result in one dynamic allocation because you assign the string and the implementation should see there is no need to resize the string's backing allocation. Of course, you wouldn't do that in this example (because multiple superior alternatives have already been demonstrated), but you might consider it when the string or vector's content varies.

So what do you do with all those options (and more)? Keep it very close as a default -- until you understand the costs well and know when you should deviate.

---

I didn't post to answer JeremyRR's questions (as they have already been answered); instead, I posted merely to give a suggestion.

To JeremyRR, you could do this:

{
  string someString = "testing";   

  for(int counter = 0; counter <= 10; counter++)
  {
    cout << someString;
  }

  // The variable is in scope.
}

// The variable is no longer in scope.

I don't know if you realize (I didn't when I first started programming), that brackets (as long they are in pairs) can be placed anywhere within the code, not just after "if", "for", "while", etc.

My code compiled in Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Express, so I know it works; also, I have tried to to use the variable outside of the brackets that it was defined in and I received an error, so I know that the variable was "destroyed".

I don't know if it is bad practice to use this method, as a lot of unlabeled brackets could quickly make the code unreadable, but maybe some comments could clear things up.

---

For C++ it depends on what you are doing. OK, it is stupid code but imagine

class myTimeEatingClass

{
 public:
 //constructor
      myTimeEatingClass()
      {
          sleep(2000);
          ms_usedTime+=2;
      }
      ~myTimeEatingClass()
      {
          sleep(3000);
          ms_usedTime+=3;
      }
      const unsigned int getTime() const
      {
          return  ms_usedTime;
      }
      static unsigned int ms_usedTime;
};

myTimeEatingClass::ms_CreationTime=0; 
myFunc()
{
    for (int counter = 0; counter <= 10; counter++) {

        myTimeEatingClass timeEater();
        //do something
    }
    cout << "Creating class took " << timeEater.getTime() << "seconds at all" << endl;

}
myOtherFunc()
{
    myTimeEatingClass timeEater();
    for (int counter = 0; counter <= 10; counter++) {
        //do something
    }
    cout << "Creating class took " << timeEater.getTime() << "seconds at all" << endl;

}

You will wait 55 seconds until you get the output of myFunc. Just because each loop constructor and destructor together need 5 seconds to finish.

You will need 5 seconds until you get the output of myOtherFunc.

Of course, this is a crazy example.

But it illustrates that it might become a performance issue when each loop the same construction is done when the constructor and / or destructor needs some time.

---

Since your second question is more concrete, I'm going to address it first, and then take up your first question with the context given by the second. I wanted to give a more evidence-based answer than what's here already.

Question #2: Do most compilers realize that the variable has already been declared and just skip that portion, or does it actually create a spot for it in memory each time?

You can answer this question for yourself by stopping your compiler before the assembler is run and looking at the asm. (Use the -S flag if your compiler has a gcc-style interface, and -masm=intel if you want the syntax style I'm using here.)

In any case, with modern compilers (gcc 10.2, clang 11.0) for x86-64, they only reload the variable on each loop pass if you disable optimizations. Consider the following C++ program—for intuitive mapping to asm, I'm keeping things mostly C-style and using an integer instead of a string, although the same principles apply in the string case:

#include <iostream>

static constexpr std::size_t LEN = 10;

void fill_arr(int a[LEN])
{
    /* *** */
    for (std::size_t i = 0; i < LEN; ++i) {
        const int t = 8;

        a[i] = t;
    }
    /* *** */
}

int main(void)
{
    int a[LEN];

    fill_arr(a);

    for (std::size_t i = 0; i < LEN; ++i) {
        std::cout << a[i] << " ";
    }

    std::cout << "\n";

    return 0;
}

We can compare this to a version with the following difference:

    /* *** */
    const int t = 8;

    for (std::size_t i = 0; i < LEN; ++i) {
        a[i] = t;
    }
    /* *** */

With optimization disabled, gcc 10.2 puts 8 on the stack on every pass of the loop for the declaration-in-loop version:

    mov QWORD PTR -8[rbp], 0
.L3:
    cmp QWORD PTR -8[rbp], 9
    ja  .L4
    mov DWORD PTR -12[rbp], 8 ;✷

whereas it only does it once for the out-of-loop version:

    mov DWORD PTR -12[rbp], 8 ;✷
    mov QWORD PTR -8[rbp], 0
.L3:
    cmp QWORD PTR -8[rbp], 9
    ja  .L4

Does this make a performance impact? I didn't see an appreciable difference in runtime between them with my CPU (Intel i7-7700K) until I pushed the number of iterations into the billions, and even then the average difference was less than 0.01s. It's only a single extra operation in the loop, after all. (For a string, the difference in in-loop operations is obviously a bit greater, but not dramatically so.)

What's more, the question is largely academic, because with an optimization level of -O1 or higher gcc outputs identical asm for both source files, as does clang. So, at least for simple cases like this, it's unlikely to make any performance impact either way. Of course, in a real-world program, you should always profile rather than make assumptions.

Question #1: Is declaring a variable inside a loop a good practice or bad practice?

As with practically every question like this, it depends. If the declaration is inside a very tight loop and you're compiling without optimizations, say for debugging purposes, it's theoretically possible that moving it outside the loop would improve performance enough to be handy during your debugging efforts. If so, it might be sensible, at least while you're debugging. And although I don't think it's likely to make any difference in an optimized build, if you do observe one, you/your pair/your team can make a judgement call as to whether it's worth it.

At the same time, you have to consider not only how the compiler reads your code, but also how it comes off to humans, yourself included. I think you'll agree that a variable declared in the smallest scope possible is easier to keep track of. If it's outside the loop, it implies that it's needed outside the loop, which is confusing if that's not actually the case. In a big codebase, little confusions like this add up over time and become fatiguing after hours of work, and can lead to silly bugs. That can be much more costly than what you reap from a slight performance improvement, depending on the use case.

---

Once upon a time (pre C++98); the following would break:

{
    for (int i=0; i<.; ++i) {std::string foo;}
    for (int i=0; i<.; ++i) {std::string foo;}
}

with the warning that i was already declared (foo was fine as that's scoped within the {}). This is likely the WHY people would first argue it's bad. It stopped being true a long time ago though.

If you STILL have to support such an old compiler (some people are on Borland) then the answer is yes, a case could be made to put the i out the loop, because not doing so makes it makes it "harder" for people to put multiple loops in with the same variable, though honestly the compiler will still fail, which is all you want if there's going to be a problem.

If you no longer have to support such an old compiler, variables should be kept to the smallest scope you can get them so that you not only minimise the memory usage; but also make understanding the project easier. It's a bit like asking why don't you have all your variables global. Same argument applies, but the scopes just change a bit.

---

The two snippets below generate the same assembly.

// snippet 1
void test() { 
   int var; 
   while(1) var = 4;
}


// snippet 2
void test() {
    while(1) int var = 4;
}

output:

test():
        push    rbp
        mov     rbp, rsp
.L2:
        mov     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 4
        jmp     .L2

Link: https://godbolt.org/z/36hsM6Pen

So, until profiling opposes or computation extensive constructor is involved, keeping declation close to its usage should be the default approach.

---

It's a very good practice, as all above answer provide very good theoretical aspect of the question let me give a glimpse of code, i was trying to solve DFS over GEEKSFORGEEKS, i encounter the optimization problem...... If you try to solve the code declaring the integer outside the loop will give you Optimization Error..

stack<int> st;
st.push(s);
cout<<s<<" ";
vis[s]=1;
int flag=0;
int top=0;
while(!st.empty()){
    top = st.top();
    for(int i=0;i<g[top].size();i++){
        if(vis[g[top][i]] != 1){
            st.push(g[top][i]);
            cout<<g[top][i]<<" ";
            vis[g[top][i]]=1;
            flag=1;
            break;
        }
    }
    if(!flag){
        st.pop();
    }
}

Now put integers inside the loop this will give you correct answer...

stack<int> st;
st.push(s);
cout<<s<<" ";
vis[s]=1;
// int flag=0;
// int top=0;
while(!st.empty()){
    int top = st.top();
    int flag = 0;
    for(int i=0;i<g[top].size();i++){
        if(vis[g[top][i]] != 1){
            st.push(g[top][i]);
            cout<<g[top][i]<<" ";
            vis[g[top][i]]=1;
            flag=1;
            break;
        }
    }
    if(!flag){
        st.pop();
    }
}

this completely reflect what sir @justin was saying in 2nd comment.... try this here https://practice.geeksforgeeks.org/problems/depth-first-traversal-for-a-graph/1. just give it a shot.... you will get it.Hope this help.

---

Chapter 4.8 Block Structure in K&R's The C Programming Language 2.Ed.:

An automatic variable declared and initialized in a block is initialized each time the block is entered.

I might have missed seeing the relevant description in the book like:

An automatic variable declared and initialized in a block is allocated only one time before the block is entered.

But a simple test can prove the assumption held:

 #include <stdio.h>                                                                                                    

 int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {                                                                                    
     for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {                                                                                     
         for (int j = 0; j < 2; j++) {                                                                                 
             int k;                                                                                                    
             printf("%p\n", &k);                                                                                       
         }                                                                                                             
     }                                                                                                                 
     return 0;                                                                                                         
 }                                                                                                                     

---

Declaring variables inside or outside of a loop, It's the result of JVM specifications But in the name of best coding practice it is recommended to declare the variable in the smallest possible scope (in this example it is inside the loop, as this is the only place where the variable is used). Declaring objects in the smallest scope improve readability. The scope of local variables should always be the smallest possible. In your example I presume str is not used outside of the while loop, otherwise you would not be asking the question, because declaring it inside the while loop would not be an option, since it would not compile.

Does it make a difference if I declare variables inside or outside a , Does it make a difference if I declare variables inside or outside a loop in Java? Is this for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { int At the level of the individual variable there is no significant difference in effeciency, but if you had a function with 1000 loops and 1000 variables (never mind the bad style implied) there could be systemic differences because all the lives of all the variables would be the same instead of overlapped.

Declaring Loop Control Variables Inside the for Loop, When you declare a variable inside a for loop, there is one important point to remember: the scope of that variable ends when the for statement does. (That is, the scope of the variable is limited to the for loop.) This Java Example shows how to declare multiple variables in Java For loop using declaration block.

---