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
GBP
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.

>
>
>
Did it have to take so long to find a b…

Did it have to take so long to find a bug?

Dec 21 2020

Have you ever wondered which type of project demonstrates higher code quality – open-source or proprietary? Our blog posts may seem to suggest that bugs tend to concentrate in open-source projects. But that's not quite true. Bugs can be found in any project, no matter the manner of storage. As for the code quality, it tends to be higher in those projects where developers care about and work on it. In this small post, you will learn about a bug that took two years to fix, although it could have been done in just five minutes.

0786_Minetest/image1.png

The chronology

Minetest is an open-source cross-platform game engine about 200 thousand lines of C, C++, and Lua code long. It allows creating various game modes in voxel space, with multiplayer mode support and easy modding.

On November 10, 2018, Issue #7852 - item_image_button[]: button too small was opened in the project's bug tracker.

This is how it goes:

The button is too small resulting in the image exceeding its borders. Button should be the same size as inventory slots. See example below (using width and height of 1).

The report was accompanied by a screenshot:

0786_Minetest/image2.png

In this screenshot, you can see that the images slightly exceed the borders of the buttons. The bug was reported way back in 2018, yet the cause behind it was discovered only this year, 2020.

Publication of a technical article "PVS-Studio: analyzing pull requests in Azure DevOps using self-hosted agents" in July 2020 was the next piece of this wonderful story. As an example of how the analyzer can be integrated with Azure DevOps, we chose that very game, Minetest. The article discusses a number of bugs, but here we are interested in one specific warning:

V636 The 'rect.getHeight() / 16' expression was implicitly cast from 'int' type to 'float' type. Consider utilizing an explicit type cast to avoid the loss of a fractional part. An example: double A = (double)(X) / Y;. hud.cpp 771

void drawItemStack(....)
{
  float barheight = rect.getHeight() / 16;
  float barpad_x = rect.getWidth() / 16;
  float barpad_y = rect.getHeight() / 16;

  core::rect<s32> progressrect(
    rect.UpperLeftCorner.X + barpad_x,
    rect.LowerRightCorner.Y - barpad_y - barheight,
    rect.LowerRightCorner.X - barpad_x,
    rect.LowerRightCorner.Y - barpad_y);
}

When dividing the width and height values by 16, the fractional part of the resulting value is truncated since this is an integer division.

Almost half a year since, the game's developers finally learned about the results of our check, and Issue 10726 - Fix errors found by professional static code analyzer was opened, where a link was discovered between this bug and the old Issue #7852. It was that very truncation that distorted the buttons' size.

The moral

The use of static code analyzers helps save a huge amount of time on bug detection. You can argue all you want about this bug being a minor issue, but I can tell you from our experience that its life cycle is typical of just any bug, no matter how critical it is.

Suppose it had been a serious bug indeed. The developers would have focused all their effort on finding and fixing it, which would have taken them an hour or so. But the analyzer would have found it in a couple of minutes anyway.

So, the moral of this story is that projects in development could greatly benefit from automated bug-detection methods. Such tools as PVS-Studio should be viewed as a complement to peer code review rather than a replacement of it.

Popular related articles
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…

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