To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (standard version)
Enterprise License (extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

>
>
Some words about template checks

Some words about template checks

Aug 31 2012
Author:

The PVS-Studio analyzer sometimes generates mysterious messages mentioning a template class. For example: V614 Instantiate ReconstructMB<PlaneY, PlaneUV, color_format, false, 1>: Uninitialized variable 'iRefFieldTop' used. On encountering such a message and reviewing the template class code you may feel sad. It all looks complicated and incomprehensible. But it's not that horrible. Let's try to parse one sample.

Consider a code fragment taken from a real application.

template <typename PlaneY, typename PlaneUV,
          Ipp32s color_format, Ipp32s is_field, Ipp32s is_weight,
          bool nv12_support = false>
class ReconstructMB
{
public:
  ...
  void CompensateMotionChromaBlock(ReconstructParams *pParams,
         Ipp32s iDir, Ipp32s iBlockNumber, Ipp32s iUniDir)
  {
    Ipp32s iRefFieldTop;
    if (is_field)
    {
      if (pParams->is_mbaff)
      {
        iRefFieldTop = pParams->is_bottom_mb ^
                       (pParams->m_iRefIndex[iDir] & 1);
        pParams->m_iRefIndex[iDir] = iRefIndex;
      }
      else
        iRefFieldTop =
          GetReferenceField(pParams->m_pSegDec->m_pFields[iDir],
                            iRefIndex);
      
      if (iRefFieldTop)
      { ..... }
    }
    .....
    interpolateInfo->pointVector.y +=
      (pParams->is_bottom_mb - iRefFieldTop) * 2; // <= V614
    .....
};

Long and obscure, do you agree? You don't want to review this code, but the analyzer urges you to pay attention to it. I took such a long sample intentionally: I want to show you that programmers shouldn't be lazy. You have to understand what exactly the analyzer doesn't like in this code.

Here is the message generated by PVS-Studio:

V614 Instantiate ReconstructMB<PlaneY, PlaneUV, color_format, false, 1>: Uninitialized variable 'iRefFieldTop' used. umc_h264_reconstruct_templates.h 227

PVS-Studio suspects that an uninitialized variable 'iRefFieldTop' is used in line 227.

If we examine the code, we'll see that the 'iRefFieldTop' variable is initialized only if the "if (is_field)" condition holds. The 'is_field' value is a template argument and has the 'Ipp32s' type.

Surely, no error will occur if the ReconstructMB class is instanced with values "is_field != 0". For example, it may look like this:

ReconstructMB<PlaneY, PlaneUV, color_format, 1, 1, false> X;

But no, the analyzer warns you not without reason. If you look attentively, you will see a funny variable declaration:

ReconstructMB<PlaneY, PlaneUV, color_format, false, 0> mb;

Something is obviously wrong here. Look what arguments we are expecting to be passed and what arguments are actually passed:

Template arguments      Arguments in the variable declaration
typename PlaneY                      PlaneY
typename PlaneUV                     PlaneUV
Ipp32s color_format                  color_format
Ipp32s is_field                      false
Ipp32s is_weight,                    0
bool nv12_support = false            (none)

It's strange that one argument of the 'Ipp32s' type is defined as being equal to '0', while the other as being equal to 'false'. A very strange programming style indeed!

Most likely, the template parameters were being added or changed during the refactoring process. In this particular fragment the developer forgot to fix the declaration of the 'mb' variable. The code compiled well and nobody noticed the bug.

Well, it's not really important how this code has appeared. What is important, there is uninitialized memory usage in the program, and the PVS-Studio analyzer has found it. It also points out in the message that the error will occur when the class is instanced in the following way: ReconstructMB<PlaneY, PlaneUV, color_format, false, 1>.

I hope I've managed to clarify what such analyzer-generated messages mean and what information they contain.

Make your code safer by using the PVS-Studio analyzer!

Popular related articles
PVS-Studio ROI

Date: Jan 30 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

Occasionally, we're asked a question, what monetary value the company will receive from using PVS-Studio. We decided to draw up a response in the form of an article and provide tables, which will sho…
Characteristics of PVS-Studio Analyzer by the Example of EFL Core Libraries, 10-15% of False Positives

Date: Jul 31 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

After I wrote quite a big article about the analysis of the Tizen OS code, I received a large number of questions concerning the percentage of false positives and the density of errors (how many erro…
PVS-Studio for Java

Date: Jan 17 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

In the seventh version of the PVS-Studio static analyzer, we added support of the Java language. It's time for a brief story of how we've started making support of the Java language, how far we've co…
The Evil within the Comparison Functions

Date: May 19 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Perhaps, readers remember my article titled "Last line effect". It describes a pattern I've once noticed: in most cases programmers make an error in the last line of similar text blocks. Now I want t…
How PVS-Studio Proved to Be More Attentive Than Three and a Half Programmers

Date: Oct 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

Just like other static analyzers, PVS-Studio often produces false positives. What you are about to read is a short story where I'll tell you how PVS-Studio proved, just one more time, to be more atte…
Technologies used in the PVS-Studio code analyzer for finding bugs and potential vulnerabilities

Date: Nov 21 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

A brief description of technologies used in the PVS-Studio tool, which let us effectively detect a large number of error patterns and potential vulnerabilities. The article describes the implementati…
The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything

Date: Apr 14 2016

Author: Andrey Karpov

Yes, you've guessed correctly - the answer is "42". In this article you will find 42 recommendations about coding in C++ that can help a programmer avoid a lot of errors, save time and effort. The au…
Appreciate Static Code Analysis!

Date: Oct 16 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

I am really astonished by the capabilities of static code analysis even though I am one of the developers of PVS-Studio analyzer myself. The tool surprised me the other day as it turned out to be sma…
Static analysis as part of the development process in Unreal Engine

Date: Jun 27 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Unreal Engine continues to develop as new code is added and previously written code is changed. What is the inevitable consequence of ongoing development in a project? The emergence of new bugs in th…
The way static analyzers fight against false positives, and why they do it

Date: Mar 20 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

In my previous article I wrote that I don't like the approach of evaluating the efficiency of static analyzers with the help of synthetic tests. In that article, I give the example of a code fragment…

Comments (0)

Next comments

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
This website uses cookies and other technology to provide you a more personalized experience. By continuing the view of our web-pages you accept the terms of using these files. If you don't want your personal data to be processed, please, leave this site.
Learn More →
Accept