Quote Originally Posted by mister_e View Post
Repeat-until will execute faster than a For-Next and need less codespace. This remind me the following thread...
http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/show...sharing&page=2

Post 8 and++
Thanks. That a good read. I've written some short programs to do the same kind of benchmarking. I didn't consider the WHILE like loops, because though I know the loop functions are faster, adding back in a counter instruction seemed to offset any gains in total Tcy's per cycler. If checking for a match (end of loop condition) does not depend on a sequential counting, the WHILE type statments would be faster, for sure. Is my understanding about this correct?