Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8027657
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 4, 20262026-06-04T23:52:40+00:00 2026-06-04T23:52:40+00:00

Reading various questions here on Stack Overflow about C++ iterators and performance**, I started wondering

  • 0

Reading various questions here on Stack Overflow about C++ iterators and performance**, I started wondering if for(auto& elem : container) gets “expanded” by the compiler into the best possible version? (Kind of like auto, which the compiler infers into the right type right away and is therefore never slower and sometimes faster).

** For example, does it matter if you write

for(iterator it = container.begin(), eit = container.end(); it != eit; ++it)

or

for(iterator it = container.begin(); it != container.end(); ++it)

for non-invalidating containers?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-04T23:52:41+00:00Added an answer on June 4, 2026 at 11:52 pm

    The Standard is your friend, see [stmt.ranged]/1

    For a range-based for statement of the form

    for ( for-range-declaration : expression ) statement
    

    let range-init be equivalent to the expression surrounded by parentheses

    ( expression )
    

    and for a range-based for statement of the form

    for ( for-range-declaration : braced-init-list ) statement
    

    let range-init be equivalent to the braced-init-list. In each case, a range-based for statement is equivalent to

    {
      auto && __range = range-init;
      for ( auto __begin = begin-expr,
                 __end = end-expr;
            __begin != __end;
            ++__begin )
      {
        for-range-declaration = *__begin;
        statement
      }
    }
    

    So yes, the Standard guarantees that the best possible form is achieved.

    And for a number of containers, such as vector, it is undefined behavior to modify (insert/erase) them during this iteration.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Reading some questions here on SO about conversion operators and constructors got me thinking
I have been reading through various questions on here, as I am learning VHDL
I've been reading through a couple of questions on here and various articles on
I've been reading various posts on Stack Overflow to try and find an ideal
I've examined various questions about taglibs and implicit objects here. While many of the
Reading through some of the questions here, the general concensus seems to be that
After reading various posts and SO questions, I understand that If we have very
I've been lurking around on various forums, and reading several stackoverflow questions related to
I've been reading about singletons in ASP.Net and I've seen various implementations and suggestions.
When reading either of these questions or the EmacsWiki article about mapping Caps Lock

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.