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--
* 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.

One Day from PVS-Studio User Support

One Day from PVS-Studio User Support

Sept. 16, 2019

We welcome any chatting on code quality. Our clients, students, and other users from all corners of the Internet write to us. Regardless of the country, time zone or language. Well, speaking language, not programming. Among programming languages, we are so far interested in a limited set. Right now, it's C, C++, C# and Java. There are many benefits from communication. We implement some users' suggestions immediately, because they are really useful. Often we just lend a hand with someone's project by explaining analyzer warnings, which end up being errors. This note is about such case.


About the analyzer

PVS-Studio is a tool designed to detect errors and potential vulnerabilities in the source code of programs, written in C, C++, C# and Java. It works in Windows, Linux and macOS environment.

There are three feedback forms to contact us:

Thursday night

One active user who tried the analyzer on his code actively started sending false warnings. Before I could answer, there were already 3 emails. It was the end of the working day and I was tired (speaking about the question of reliability of manual code review). Our team was actively preparing for a high-wrought release, which was a few days away.

I decided to answer on Friday or even during the next week:

Hello Constantine.

We'll review your warnings. Next week I will comment on suspicious places:-)

This note is about effectiveness of static code analysis. Manual code review will be inferior to automatic check in many cases, especially at the end of the day.

With the user's permission, I will cite you our mails:

Email 1

False-positive V712 warnings:

uint32_t StartUpCounter = 0, HSEStatus = 0;
RCC->CR |= ((uint32_t)RCC_CR_HSEON);
/* Wait till HSE is ready and if Time out is reached exit */
} while((HSEStatus == 0) && (StartUpCounter != HSE_STARTUP_TIMEOUT)); // V712...

Email 2

V715 false positive for the same fragment:

{ // V715 ... lpmode.cpp 356
} while((HSEStatus == 0) && (StartUpCounter != HSE_STARTUP_TIMEOUT));

Email 3

Holy cats, such a haunted place! The analyzer complains about the same fragment (see the code from the previous emails):

V560 A part of conditional expression is always true: (StartUpCounter != ((uint16_t) 0x5000)). lpmode.cpp 356

V776 Potentially infinite loop. The variable in the loop exit condition 'HSEStatus == 0' does not change its value between iterations. lpmode.cpp 356

Maybe I don't get something? But in practice everything works, and if the quartz does not start, then we exit this fragment on timeout;-)

Email 4 (reply)

Hello Constantine.

We'll review your warnings. Next week I will comment on suspicious places:-)

Email 5

Damn it! Only after your email, I noticed that the statement "do" is missed... Finally, all fell into a groove! Seems like I completely lost my eye sharpness %)

do {...} while (...);


As you may have noticed, there were 4 analyzer warnings for the same fragment, but it still took time to convince the user that there was an error. In such a situation, manual review would not even have a chance.

A similar story with happy ending: "How PVS-Studio Proved to Be More Attentive Than Three and a Half Programmers"

Use static analyzers in your project. They don't replace code review with colleagues, but add support to code quality control.

Popular related articles
The Last Line Effect

Date: 05.31.2014

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…
Technologies used in the PVS-Studio code analyzer for finding bugs and potential vulnerabilities

Date: 11.21.2018

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…
Appreciate Static Code Analysis!

Date: 10.16.2017

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…
PVS-Studio ROI

Date: 01.30.2019

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…
The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything

Date: 04.14.2016

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…
Characteristics of PVS-Studio Analyzer by the Example of EFL Core Libraries, 10-15% of False Positives

Date: 07.31.2017

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 way static analyzers fight against false positives, and why they do it

Date: 03.20.2017

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…
Static analysis as part of the development process in Unreal Engine

Date: 06.27.2017

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 Evil within the Comparison Functions

Date: 05.19.2017

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

Date: 12.22.2018

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…

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 →