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.
