Skip to main content

Understanding the Difference Between Postfix and Prefix Operators

The built-in ++ and—operators can appear on both sides of their operand:
int n=0;
++n; // prefix ++
n++; // postfix ++
You probably know that a prefix operator first changes its operand before taking its value. For example:
int n=0, m=0;
n = ++m; // first increment m, then assign its value to n
cout << n << m; // display 1 1
In this example, n equals 1 after the assignment because the increment operation took place before m's value was taken and assigned to n. By contrast,
int n=0, m=0;
n = m++; // first assign m's value to n, then increment m
cout << n << m; // display 0 1
In this example, n equals 0 after the assignment because the increment operation took place after m's original value was taken and assigned to n.
To understand the difference between postfix and prefix operators better, you can examine the disassembly code generated for these operations. Even if you're not familiar with assembly languages, you can immediately see the difference between the two—simply notice where the inc (increment) assembly directive appears:
// disassembly of the expression: m=n++;
mov ecx, [ebp-0x04] // store n's value in ecx register
mov [ebp-0x08], ecx // assign value in ecx to m
inc dword ptr [ebp-0x04] // increment n;

// disassembly of the expression: m=++n;
inc dword ptr [ebp-0x04] // increment n;
mov eax, [ebp-0x04] // store n's value in eax register
mov [ebp-0x08], eax // assign value in eax to m

Comments

Unknown said…
Really nice information.

--
www.go4expert.com - Programming and web development forum

Popular posts from this blog

Explain Polymorphism and Flavors of Polymorphism...

Polymorphism is the ability of different objects to react in an individual manner to the same message. This notion was imported from natural languages. For example, the verb "to close" means different things when applied to different objects. Closing a door, closing a bank account, or closing a program's window are all different actions; their exact meaning is determined by the object on which the action is performed. Most object-oriented languages implement polymorphism only in the form of virtual functions. But C++ has two more mechanisms of static (meaning: compile-time) polymorphism: Operator overloading. Applying the += operator to integers or string objects, for example, is interpreted by each of these objects in an individual manner. Obviously, the underlying implementation of += differs in every type. Yet, intuitively, we can predict what results are. Templates. A vector of integers, for example, reacts differently from a vector of string objects when it receives ...

Function name mangling for C++ and Java

G++ internals - Mangling Both C++ and Jave provide overloaded function and methods, which are methods with the same types but different parameter lists. Selecting the correct version is done at compile time. Though the overloaded functions have the same name in the source code, they need to be translated into different assembler-level names, since typical assemblers and linkers cannot handle overloading. This process of encoding the parameter types with the method name into a unique name is called name mangling . The inverse process is called demangling . It is convenient that C++ and Java use compatible mangling schemes, since the makes life easier for tools such as gdb, and it eases integration between C++ and Java. Note there is also a standard "Jave Native Interface" (JNI) which implements a different calling convention, and uses a different mangling scheme. The JNI is a rather abstract ABI so Java can call methods written in C or C++; we are concerned he...