I'm missing something here...

[Erik]

Apologies for self-replying

On 12/01/16 08:24, Erik wrote:
> On 12/01/16 07:13, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>> The former. Almost any loop _might_ be executed zero times. Compilers
>> and linters etc should only complain if they can prove the loop is
>> always executed zero times.
>
> I was just raising the
> possibility that the bug could have been that the loop was (incorrectly)
> determined to be executed zero times for some reason.

Having just read it again, I note that Skip said he'd changed the |= to 
something different (and I've since read the solution to the question).

I had misread what Skip said to mean he had added a new line _after_ the 
'for' loop which touched the variable.

E.