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

Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Free PVS-Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

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

I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

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.

A nice 64-bit error in C

A nice 64-bit error in C

Nov 19 2009

In C language, you may use functions without defining them. Pay attention that I speak about C language, not C++. Of course, this ability is very dangerous. Let us have a look at an interesting example of a 64-bit error related to it.

Below is the correct code that allocates and uses three arrays, 1 GB each:

#include <stdlib.h>
void test()
  const size_t Gbyte = 1024 * 1024 * 1024;
  size_t i;
  char *Pointers[3];
  // Allocate
  for (i = 0; i != 3; ++i)
    Pointers[i] = (char *)malloc(Gbyte);
  // Use
  for (i = 0; i != 3; ++i)
    Pointers[i][0] = 1;
  // Free
  for (i = 0; i != 3; ++i)

This code correctly allocates memory, writes one into the first item of each array and frees the allocated memory. The code is absolutely correct on a 64-bit system.

Now delete or comment the line "#include <stdlib.h>". The code still compiles but the program crashes after the launch. As the header file "stdlib.h" is disabled, the C compiler considers that malloc function will return int type. The first two allocations are most likely to be successful. After the third call, malloc function will return the array's address outside the range of the first two Gbyte. As the compiler considers the function's result to have int type, it interprets the result incorrectly and saves the incorrect value of the pointer in Pointers array.

To make it clearer, let us consider an assembler code generated by Visual C++ compiler for the 64-bit Debug version. At first look at the correct code generated when malloc function is defined (i.e. the file "stdlib.h" is included):

Pointers[i] = (char *)malloc(Gbyte);
mov   rcx,qword ptr [Gbyte]
call  qword ptr [__imp_malloc (14000A518h)]
mov    rcx,qword ptr [i]
mov    qword ptr Pointers[rcx*8],rax

Now consider the variant of the incorrect code when malloc function is not defined:

Pointers[i] = (char *)malloc(Gbyte);
mov    rcx,qword ptr [Gbyte]
call   malloc (1400011A6h)
mov    rcx,qword ptr [i]
mov    qword ptr Pointers[rcx*8],rax

Consider the CDQE instruction (Convert doubleword to quadword). The compiler supposed the result to be kept in eax registers and extended it to a 64-bit value to write into Pointers array. Respectively, the high-order bits of rax register are lost. Even if the address of the allocated memory is inside the range of the first 4 GB, we still get the incorrect result when the high-order bit of eax register equals 1. For example, the address 0x81000000 turns into 0xFFFFFFFF81000000.

Fortunately, this type of errors is easy to define. For example, Visual C++ compiler generates two warnings informing about a potential problem:

warning C4013: 'malloc' undefined; assuming extern returning int

warning C4312: 'type cast' : conversion from 'int' to 'char *' of greater size

And PVS-Studio 3.40 analyzer generates the warning "error V201: Explicit type conversion. Type casting to memsize.".

Popular related articles
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
The Last Line Effect

Date: May 31 2014

Author: Andrey Karpov

I have studied many errors caused by the use of the Copy-Paste method, and can assure you that programmers most often tend to make mistakes in the last fragment of a homogeneous code block. I have ne…
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 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 →