++i比i++快，因为它不返回值的旧副本。

它也更直观:

x = i++;  // x contains the old value of i
y = ++i;  // y contains the new value of i 

这个C语言的例子输出的是“02”而不是你所期望的“12”:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(){
    int a = 0;
    printf("%d", a++);
    printf("%d", ++a);
    return 0;
}

c++也是一样:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main(){
    int a = 0;
    cout << a++;
    cout << ++a;
    return 0;
}

i++有时比++ I快!

对于使用ILP(指令级并行)的x86架构，i++在某些情况下可能优于++i。

为什么?因为数据依赖关系。现代cpu可以并行化很多东西。如果接下来的几个CPU周期对i的增量值没有任何直接依赖，CPU可能会省略微码来延迟i的增量，并将其塞到“空闲插槽”中。这意味着您实际上得到了一个“免费”增量。

我不知道ILE在这种情况下走多远，但我认为如果迭代器变得太复杂，并做指针解引用，这可能不会工作。

下面是Andrei Alexandrescu对这个概念的解释:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrfYLlR8X8k&list=WL&index=5

谷歌c++风格指南说:

Preincrement and Predecrement Use prefix form (++i) of the increment and decrement operators with iterators and other template objects. Definition: When a variable is incremented (++i or i++) or decremented (--i or i--) and the value of the expression is not used, one must decide whether to preincrement (decrement) or postincrement (decrement). Pros: When the return value is ignored, the "pre" form (++i) is never less efficient than the "post" form (i++), and is often more efficient. This is because post-increment (or decrement) requires a copy of i to be made, which is the value of the expression. If i is an iterator or other non-scalar type, copying i could be expensive. Since the two types of increment behave the same when the value is ignored, why not just always pre-increment? Cons: The tradition developed, in C, of using post-increment when the expression value is not used, especially in for loops. Some find post-increment easier to read, since the "subject" (i) precedes the "verb" (++), just like in English. Decision: For simple scalar (non-object) values there is no reason to prefer one form and we allow either. For iterators and other template types, use pre-increment.

两者都一样快;) 如果你想在处理器上进行相同的计算，只是计算的顺序不同。

例如，以下代码:

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
    int a = 0;
    a++;
    int b = 0;
    ++b;
    return 0;
}

生产以下组件:

0x0000000100000f24 <main+0>: push %rbp 0x0000000100000f25 <main+1>: mov %rsp，%rbp 0x0000000100000f28 <main+4>: movl $0x0，-0x4(%rbp) 0x0000000100000f2f <main+11>: incl -0x4(%rbp) 0x0000000100000f32 <main+14>: movl $0x0，-0x8(%rbp) 0x0000000100000f39 <main+21>: incl -0x8(%rbp) 0x0000000100000f3c <main+24>: mov $0x0，%eax 0x0000000100000f41 <main+29>: leaveq .日志含义 0x0000000100000f42 <main+30>: retq

你可以看到，对于a++和b++，它是一个包含助记符，所以它是相同的操作;)

既然你也要求c++，下面是java的基准测试(用jmh制作):

private static final int LIMIT = 100000;

@Benchmark
public void postIncrement() {
    long a = 0;
    long b = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) {
        b = 3;
        a += i * (b++);
    }
    doNothing(a, b);
}

@Benchmark
public void preIncrement() {
    long a = 0;
    long b = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) {
        b = 3;
        a += i * (++b);
    }
    doNothing(a, b);
}  

结果表明，即使在某些计算中实际使用了增量变量(b)的值，迫使需要存储额外的值以防止后增量，每个操作的时间也完全相同:

Benchmark                         Mode  Cnt  Score   Error  Units
IncrementBenchmark.postIncrement  avgt   10  0,039   0,001  ms/op
IncrementBenchmark.preIncrement   avgt   10  0,039   0,001  ms/op

@Ketan

.．.加薪忽略了关于意图和性能的细节。有时我们想用iter++而不是++iter。

Obviously post and pre-increment have different semantics and I'm sure everyone agrees that when the result is used you should use the appropriate operator. I think the question is what should one do when the result is discarded (as in for loops). The answer to this question (IMHO) is that, since the performance considerations are negligible at best, you should do what is more natural. For myself ++i is more natural but my experience tells me that I'm in a minority and using i++ will cause less metal overhead for most people reading your code.

毕竟，这就是语言不叫“c++ C”的原因。[*]

[*]插入关于c++ C是一个更合乎逻辑的名称的必要讨论。