If "i" started out higher than "n", the loop would exit immediately and there would be no increment. More generally, if "n" is an int, then even if n is modifie

If "i" started out higher than "n", the loop would exit immediately and there would be no increment. More generally, if "n" is an int, then even if n is modified each iteration, the "i < n; i++" still can't overflow because it will always exit at INT_MAX if not before. If "n" is something else like a long then that's likely a mistake that falls under "the compiler should warn if you do this". If there were good reason for wanting to assume this, I would expect someone to have presented it; responses I hear just take the form of a single (usually contrived) example where more performant code is generated, then insisting that all other factors (e.g. being predictable/unsurprising, acting like the underlying architecture, mitigating bugs) are irrelevant. Just as GP did.