Hcfyk

First of all, Way 2 and Way 3 are identical in practically all standard library implementations.

Apart from that, the options you posted are almost equivalent. The only notable difference is that in Way 1 and Way 2/3, you rely on the compiler to optimize the call to v.end() and v.size() out. If that assumption is correct, there is no performance difference between the loops.

If it's not, Way 4 is the most efficient. Recall how a range based for loop expands to

{

   auto && __range = range_expression ;

   auto __begin = begin_expr ;

   auto __end = end_expr ;

   for ( ; __begin != __end; ++__begin) {

      range_declaration = *__begin;

      loop_statement

   }

}

The important part here is that this guarantees the end_expr to be evaluated only once. Also note that for the range based for loop to be the most efficient iteration, you must not change how the dereferencing of the iterator is handled, e.g.

for (auto value: a) { /* ... */ }

this copies each element of the vector into the loop variable value, which is likely to be slower than for (const auto& value : a), depending on the size of the elements in the vector.

Note that with the parallel algorithm facilities in C++17, you can also try out

#include <algorithm>

#include <execution>



std::for_each(std::par_unseq, a.cbegin(), a.cend(),

   (const auto& e) { /* do stuff... */ });

but whether this is faster than an ordinary loop depends on may circumstantial details.

Addition to lubgr's answer:

Unless you discover via profiling the code in question to be a bottleneck, efficiency (which you probably meant instead of 'effectivity') shouldn't be your first concern, at least not on this level of code. Much more important are code readability and maintainability! So you should select the loop variant that reads best, which usually is way 4.

Indices can be useful if you have steps greater than 1 (whyever you would need to...):

for(size_t i = 0; i < v.size(); i += 2) { ... }

While += 2 per se is legal on iterators, too, you risk undefined behaviour at loop end if the vector has odd size because you increment past the one past the end position! (Generally spoken: If you increment by n, you get UB if size is not an exact multiple of n.) So you need additional code to catch this, while you don't with the index variant...

Prefer iterators over indices/keys.

While for vector or array there should be no difference between either form¹, it is a good habit to get into for other containers.

_{¹As long as you use instead of .at() for accesssing by index, of course.}

Memorize the end-bound.

Recomputing the end-bound at each iteration is inefficient for two reasons:

• In general: a local variable is not aliased, which is more optimizer-friendly.


• On containers other than vector: computing the end/size could be a bit more expensive.

You can do so as a one-liner:

for (auto it = vec.begin(), end = vec.end(); it != end; ++it) { ... }

(This is an exception to the general prohibition on declaring a single variable at a time.)

Use the for-each loop form.

The for-each loop form will automatically:

• Use iterators.


• Memorize the end-bound.

Thus:

for (/*...*/ value : vec) { ... }

Take built-in types by values, other types by reference.

There is a non-obvious trade-off between taking an element by value and taking an element by reference:

• Taking an element by reference avoids a copy, which can be an expensive operation.


• Taking an element by value is more optimizer-friendly¹.

At the extremes, the choice should be obvious:

• Built-in types (int, std::int64_t, void*, ...) should be taken by value.


• Potentially allocating types (std::string, ...) should be taken by reference.

In the middle, or when faced with generic code, I would recommend starting with references: it's better to avoid a performance cliff than attempting to squeeze out the last cycle.

Thus, the general form is:

for (auto& element : vec) { ... }

And if you are dealing with a built-in:

for (int element : vec) { ... }

_{¹This is a general principle of optimization, actually: local variables are friendlier than pointers/references because the optimizer knows all the potential aliases (or absence, thereof) of the local variable.}

The lazy answer: The complexities are equivalent.

• The time complexity of all solutions is Θ(n).


• The space complexity of all solutions is Θ(1).

The constant factors involved in the various solutions are implementation details. If you need numbers, you're probably best off benchmarking the different solutions on your particular target system.

It may help to store v.size() rsp. v.end(), although these are usually inlined, so such optimizations may not be needed, or performed automatically.

Note that indexing (without memoizing v.size()) is the only way to correctly deal with a loop body that may add additional elements (using push_back()). However, most use cases do not need this extra flexibility.

For completeness, I wanted to mention that your loop might want to change the size of the vector.

std::vector<int> v = get_some_data();

for (std::size_t i=0; i<v.size(); ++i)

{

    int x = some_function(v[i]);

    if(x) v.push_back(x);

}

In such an example you have to use indices and you have to re-evaluate v.size() in every iteration.

If you do the same with a range-based for loop or with iterators, you might end up with undefined behavior since adding new elements to a vector might invalidate your iterators.

By the way, I prefer to use while-loops for such cases over for-loops but that's another story.

All of the ways you listed have identical time complexity and identical space complexity (no surprise there).

Using the for(auto& value : v) syntax is marginally more efficient, because with the other methods, the compiler may re-load v.size() and v.end() from memory every time you do the test, whereas with for(auto& value : v) this never occurs (it only loads the begin() and end() iterators once).

We can observe a comparison of the assembly produced by each method here: https://godbolt.org/z/LnJF6p

On a somewhat funny note, the compiler implements method3 as a jmp instruction to method2.

It depends to a large extent on what you mean by "effective".

Other answers have mentioned efficiency, but I'm going to focus on the (IMO) most important purpose of C++ code: to convey your intent to other programmers¹.

From this perspective, method 4 is clearly the most effective. Not just because there are fewer characters to read, but mainly because there's less cognitive load: we don't need to check whether the bounds or step size are unusual, whether the loop iteration variable (i or it) is used or modified anywhere else, whether there's a typo or copy/paste error such as for (auto i = 0u; i < v1.size(); ++i) { std::cout << v2[i]; }, or dozens of other possibilities.

Quick quiz: Given std::vector<int> v1, v2, v3;, how many of the following loops are correct?

for (auto it = v1.cbegin();  it != v1.end();  ++it)

{

    std::cout << v1[i];

}



for (auto i = 0u;  i < v2.size();  ++i)

{

    std::cout << v1[i];

}



for (auto const i: v3)

{

    std::cout << i;

}

Expressing the loop control as clearly as possible allows the developer's mind to hold more understanding of the high-level logic, rather than being cluttered with implementation details - after all, this is why we're using C++ in the first place!

¹ To be clear, when I'm writing code, I consider the most important "other programmer" to be Future Me, trying to understand, "Who wrote this rubbish?"...

Prefer method 4, std::for_each (if you really must), or method 5/6:

void method5(std::vector<float>& v) {

    for(std::vector<float>::iterator it = v.begin(), e = v.end(); it != e; ++it) {

        *it *= *it; 

    }

}

void method6(std::vector<float>& v) {

    auto ptr = v.data();

    for(std::size_t i = 0, n = v.size(); i != n; i++) {

        ptr[i] *= ptr[i]; 

    }

}

The first 3 methods can suffer from issues of pointer aliasing (as alluded to in previous answers), but are all equally bad. Given that it's possible another thread may be accessing the vector, most compilers will play it safe, and re-evaluate end() and size() in each iteration. This will prevent all SIMD optimisations.

You can see proof here:

https://godbolt.org/z/BchhmU

You'll notice that only 4/5/6 make use of the vmulps SIMD instructions, where as 1/2/3 only ever use the non-SIMD vmulss instructiuon.

Note: I'm using VC++ in the godbolt link because it demonstrates the problem nicely. The same problem does occur with gcc/clang, but it's not easy to demonstrate it with godbolt - you usually need to disassemble your DSO to see this happening.