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--
USD
EUR
RUB
* 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.

>
>
>
Upsetting opinions about static analyze…

Upsetting opinions about static analyzers

Oct 12 2020
Author:

Static analysis tools have advanced far over the time they've been around. They no longer resemble the "linters" that were in active use 20 years ago. But some programmers still view them as extremely primitive tools. And that's very sad. It hurts to see the static analysis methodology in general and our PVS-Studio analyzer in particular treated that way.

0765_Sadness/image1-ec2a183069835fd4a4203ec7196695a9.png

That feeling was evoked by a comment left under one of our articles. In that article, we said that the analyzer would detect a typo by issuing a warning on the following code pattern:

if (A[0] == 0)
{
  X = Y;
  if (A[0] == 0)
    ....
}

The analyzer says the second condition is always true. Indeed, a close look at the function's body reveals that the programmer intended some other element to be checked.

Now, someone commented on this along the following lines:

Yes, it's indeed an error in this particular case. But in the general case, this warning is wrong because the element may change its value during the time between the two identical checks, in which case the second check would make sense.

It's sad. Programmers still seem to think that code analyzers are based on the use of regular expressions – they believe the tool gets mad on simply seeing two identical nested ifs :(.

Of course, any modern static analyzer tracks the changes of variables' values. If a variable doesn't change, a warning is issued. If it does, no warning is issued. To ensure that, analyzers rely on data stream analysis.

And that's exactly how PVS-Studio works. Let's take a look at the following synthetic example:

char get();
int foo(char *p, bool arg)
{
    if (p[1] == 1)
    {
        if (arg)
            p[0] = get();
        if (p[1] == 1)          // Warning
            return 1;
    }
    if (p[2] == 2)
    {
        if (arg)
            p[2] = get();
        if (p[2] == 2)          // Ok
            return 2;
    }
    return 3;
}

This code consists of two similar blocks. In one, the variable being checked doesn't change, while in the other it does. That's why the analyzer issues a warning only on the first block: V547 Expression 'p[1] == 1' is always true.

Programmers needn't worry. Modern tools are advanced enough to issue warnings only on really suspicious code. Sure, false positives occur every now and then, but they usually have to do with complicated code structure, which even a human reviewer may have a hard time figuring out.

GetFreeTrialImage

Further reading

Popular related articles

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 →
Accept