[GuskiS]

Originally Posted by HamletEagle Also your example is wrong, you are using the iterator i that is never declared.

for(new var, i; i < x; i++ )
It is defined, same as var

PHP Code:

// You example:
public func()
{
    new var;
    for(new i; i < 15; i++)
    {
        var++;
    }

    log_amx("Var value is %d", var); // prints out 14
}

// My and Arkshine's example:
public func()
{
    for(new var, i; i < 15; i++)
    {
        var++;
    }

    log_amx("Var value is %d", var); // Give error on compile cause var isn't declared.
} 


Look carefully and you will see the difference. It is not a bad way, but since you gave example where you use var only inside a loop, you should know you can use this way.

Originally Posted by Arkshine Q1. Defining a scope for used variables is welcome. In your example you can do that easily: It's usually a good idea to declare variables near where you use them.

[HamletEagle]

I know it, but I think I'm blind, didn't saw ",i", my bad.

[ezio_auditore]

Originally Posted by GuskiS You are saying that creating variable takes 4 bytes and asigning it with new value also take 4 bytes, but if I leave other untouched?

Declaration takes nothing but if you assign the variable, then it will hold the reference of the of the 4 bytes representing the value you assigned the variable with. And if you assign the same variable with a different value, it will then hold the reference of the another 4 bytes representing the new value. The same occurs even if you declare the variable outside or inside.

[Jhob94]

Why to argue about this? Correct way is to create outside. It does not matters if you can create inside of loop sometimes, as hamlet said, begginers will get confused if you tell them this. They will think they can create inside the loops everytime and they will do things wrong. Also, when you can create some inside, it doesnt matters if you create outside. So, this thread seem a bit useless, it should always be created outside, no matter if can be created inside.

[klippy]

Originally Posted by ezio_auditore Declaration takes nothing but if you assign the variable, then it will hold the reference of the of the 4 bytes representing the value you assigned the variable with. And if you assign the same variable with a different value, it will then hold the reference of the another 4 bytes representing the new value. The same occurs even if you declare the variable outside or inside.

Assigning does not use any memory, declaration does, as it pushes the stack, allocating 1 cell(4 or 8 bytes) on top of it. According to that, this code:

new x; // Declaring a new variable 

translates to:

push.c	0

meaning that it allocates(pushes) 1 cell onto the stack.
Assigning takes no memory, so this code:

x = 5;

will translate to:

const.pri	5
stor.s.pri	[offset in bytes from the stack frame pointer to variable "x"]

which, as you can see, has nothing to do with stack or heap, meaning that it takes no memory.
And this variable doesn't hold any reference to 4 bytes or whatever, it always has the same memory location while it is allocated, the only thing that changes is the value of the allocated 4 bytes.

And the interesting thing is, which I've just found out while experimenting, that this:

new x = 5;
/*
push.c  5
*/

is faster than this is:

new x;
x = 5;
/*
push.c  0
const.pri   5
stor.s.pri  [offset in bytes from the stack frame pointer to variable "x"]
*/

for obvious reason. Another sign that PAWN compiler can't optimize code.

[Jhob94]

Originally Posted by KliPPy And the interesting thing is, which I've just found out while experimenting, that this: new x = 5; /* push.c  5 */ is faster than this is: new x; x = 5; /* push.c  0 const.pri   5 stor.s.pri  [offset in bytes from the stack frame pointer to variable "x"] */ for obvious reason. Another sign that PAWN compiler can't optimize code.

This part i didn't knew. Indeed interesting. Thanks for share

[HamletEagle]

@KliPPy, did you get this infos by decompiling ?

[Arkshine]

Disassembling. (amxxdump for example)

[klippy]

Originally Posted by Arkshine Disassembling. (amxxdump for example)

Exactly, I used amxxdump.

Originally Posted by HamletEagle @KliPPy, did you get this infos by decompiling ?

The only thing I found out by disassembling is the experiment I mentioned in the last post. Everything I said before that are things I've known already, and I do understand Pawn op-codes.