by my references, I read that the below (x = n if no break) is true. However should that not be the case, and Keil can change it there is a great risk, thus I'd like another read on it.
a for loop
for ( x = 0 ; x < n ; x++) { ....... if (cond) break; ....... } if (x = n) { // there was no break
can I count on x = n if 'cond' was never met and no break happened?
If that is not something that Keil can change, but standard, I can save a bunch of flags
Erik
The above is a very common test, and allowed.
Note that you have managed to do an assign in your last if test.
No, Keil can not break this. The code optimizer may switch order of things, but (with exception of timing) must guarantee the logic sqeuence of the program.
x != n if and only if the loop did break early.