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.

The compiler is to blame for everything

The compiler is to blame for everything

Sep 10 2012

Many programmers are very fond of blaming the compiler for different errors. Let's talk about it.

Are you sure?

When a programmer tells you that the compiler causes an error, it is a lie in 99% of cases. When you start investigating the problem, you usually find out the following reasons:

  • an array overrun;
  • an uninitialized variable;
  • a misprint;
  • a synchronization error in a parallel program;
  • a non-volatile variable used;
  • code leading to undefined behavior;
  • etc.

Many went through fixing such errors. Many read about them. But it doesn't prevent them from blaming the compiler for all sins again and again. Each time it seems that it's exactly it which is guilty.

The compiler, of course, might also contain errors. But this probability is very small unless you use some exotic compiler for a microcontroller. During many years of working with Visual C++ I saw only once that it had generated an incorrect assembler code.

A small recommendation

Before starting to blame the compiler and write about it in the code or on a forum, carry out a thorough investigation. First, you will eliminate an error in your code sooner. Second, you won't look silly in other programmers' eyes who will point out your slip-up.

What made me write this post

I've been much amused today by a code fragment from the ffdshow project. Here it is:

TprintPrefs::TprintPrefs(IffdshowBase *Ideci,
                         const TfontSettings *IfontSettings)
  memset(this, 0, sizeof(this)); // This doesn't seem to
                                 // help after optimization.
  dx = dy = 0;
  isOSD = false;
  xpos = ypos = 0;
  align = 0;
  linespacing = 0;
  sizeDx = 0;
  sizeDy = 0;

Looking at the comment I can imagine how angry the programmer was. Oh, that insufferable compiler! In the debug version all the variables equal 0. In the release version they contain trash because of the faulty optimization. Outrageous! Bad, bad compiler!

Having scolded the compiler, the programmer leaves an accusing comment and goes on to write a code which zeroes each class member separately. Courage conquers evil forces.

Which is worse, this person will be absolutely sure that he/she has encountered a bug in the compiler and will tell everybody how much he/she has suffered because of it.

If somebody hasn't got the humor of the situation, I will explain. The memset() function in that sample doesn't work because of a simplest error: the third argument calculates the pointer size, not the structure size. The correct call should look like this: "memset(this, 0, sizeof(*this));".

By the way, the memcpy() function nearby works poorly too. I'm sure the programmer believes compiler developers are inept creatures.

void Assign(const AVSValue* src, bool init) {
  if (src->IsClip() && src->clip)
  if (!init && IsClip() && clip)
  // make sure this copies the whole struct!
  //((__int32*)this)[0] = ((__int32*)src)[0];
  //((__int32*)this)[1] = ((__int32*)src)[1];

From the comments you can see that the programmer tried to copy memory through alternative methods. However, then he/she decided to leave the 'memcpy()' function there. Perhaps it worked well in the 64-bit program where the pointer size equals 8 bytes, while it's exactly 8 bytes that the programmer wanted to copy.

Again, there is an error in the third argument. "sizeof(*this)" should be written instead.

This is how legends about glitchy compilers and brave programmers fighting them are born.


If something goes wrong, search for a mistake in your code.


How did I find these errors? Very simply - I used the PVS-Studio code analyzer.

Popular related articles
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 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…
Free PVS-Studio for those who develops open source projects

Date: Dec 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

On the New 2019 year's eve, a PVS-Studio team decided to make a nice gift for all contributors of open-source projects hosted on GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket. They are given free usage of PVS-Studio s…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…

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 →