Yeah re-reading the wording now I think you're right. It's this part that throws me off:
> could determine that, in the absence of any undefined behavior
"could determine that" based on the code example shown
vs
"could determine that" based on static analysis performed on some preceding code
It would have been a lot easier to wrap my head around if it were an example where cond could be 0 or 4 or something along those lines. It would really underscore the compiler's desire to reuse the cond as the index.
> could determine that, in the absence of any undefined behavior
"could determine that" based on the code example shown
vs
"could determine that" based on static analysis performed on some preceding code
It would have been a lot easier to wrap my head around if it were an example where cond could be 0 or 4 or something along those lines. It would really underscore the compiler's desire to reuse the cond as the index.