3 ms·
Do note that modern compilers can detect when the return value of the ++ operator is unused, and skip the extra steps when unneeded. (I've verified the resultin
by wtracy 12y ago
Do note that modern compilers can detect when the return value of the ++ operator is unused, and skip the extra steps when unneeded. (I've verified the resulting assembler myself from GCC 3.X.) That said, I still use the prefix notation because I can't come up with a good reason not to.
- NAFV_P 12y ago> Do note that modern compilers can detect when the return value of the ++ operator is unused, and skip the extra steps when unneeded. Is there an equivalent instruction in assembly for postfix increment/decrement?
- wtracy 12y agoNeither one really has a direct "equivalent" in assembly. Prefix is going to look something like: inc eax # increment the value mov eax,ecx # copy the return value to its destination Postfix is going to look something like: mov eax,ebx # copy original value inc eax # increment value mov ebx,ecx # copy original value to final destination The actual code you'd get would vary a lot between compilers, architectures, and even just different contexts within the same compiler-architecture combination.
- NAFV_P 12y agoThank you, dammit I really should learn assembly.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]