CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++performanceconstantsliteralscode-size
hkBattousai
hkBattousai

Reputation: 10931

Should I define constants for repeating literals in the code?

I have an example code like this, in which the literal 1 repeats several times.

foo(x - 1);
y = z + 1;
bar[1] = y;

Should I define a constant ONE, and replace the literals with it?

constexpr int ONE = 1;
foo(x - ONE);
y = z + ONE;
bar[ONE] = y;

Would this replacement make any performance improvement and/or reduce machine code size in the favor of reducing code readability? Would the number of repeating of the literal change the answer?

Upvotes: 0

Views: 661

Answers (5)

FreeNickname
FreeNickname

Reputation: 7814

It will not bring you any performance/memory improvements. However, you should try to keep your code clean from magical numbers. So, if there is a repeated constant in your code in several places, and in all those places this constant is the same from logical point of view, it would be better to make it a named constant.

Example: 

const int numberOfParticles = 10; //This is just an example, it's better not to use global variables.

void processParticlesPair(int i, int j) {
    for (int iteration = 0; iteration < 10; ++iteration) {
        //note, that I didn't replace "10" in the line above, because it is not a numberOrParticles, 
        //but a number of iterations, so it is a different constant from a logical point of view.


        //Do stuff
    }
}

void displayParticles() {
    for (int i = 0; i < numberOfParticles; ++i) {
        for (int j = 0; j < numberOfParticles; ++j) {
            if (i != j) {
                processParticlesPair(i, j);
            }
        }
    }
}

Upvotes: 3

Matt Vollrath
Matt Vollrath

Reputation: 169

In assembly, one constant value generally takes the same amount of memory as any other. Setting a constant value in your source code is more of a convenience for humans than an optimization.

In this case, using ONE in such a way is neither a performance or readability enhancement. That's why you've probably never seen it in source code before ;)

Upvotes: 0

Maru
Maru

Reputation: 942

Depends. If you just have 1s in your code and you ask if you should replace them: DONT. Keep your code clean. You will not have any performance or memory advantages - even worse, you might increase build time
If the 1, however, is a build-time parameter: Yes, please introduce a constant! But choose a better name than ONE!

Upvotes: 1

jofel
jofel

Reputation: 3415

Replacing literals with named constants make only sense, if the meaning of the constant is special. Replacing 1 with ONE is just overhead in most cases, and does not add any useful information to the reader, especially if it is used in different functions (index, part of a calculation etc.). If the entry 1 of an array is somehow special, using a constant THE_SPECIAL_INDEX=1 would make sense. For the compiler it usually does not make any difference.

Upvotes: 0

user743382
user743382

Reputation:

Should I define a constant ONE, and replace the literals with it?

No, absolutely not. If you have a name that indicates the meaning of the number (e.g. NumberOfDummyFoos), if its value can change and you want to prevent having to update it in a dozen locations, then you can use a constant for that, but a constant ONE adds absolutely no value over a literal 1.

Would this replacement make any performance improvement and/or reduce machine code size in the favor of reducing code readability?

In any realistic implementation, it does not.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions