To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (a basic version)
Enterprise License (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.

Static analysis protects your code from…

Static analysis protects your code from time bombs

Aug 04 2021

Static code analysis allows you to identify and eliminate many defects at an early stage. Moreover, it's possible to detect dormant errors that don't show themselves when they appear. They can cause many problems in the future and it requires many hours of debugging to detect them. Let's look at an example of such a dormant error.


To show the advantage of regular use of the PVS-Studio static analyzer, we regularly check the Blender project. My colleague wrote more about this idea here.

Sometimes I keep an eye on the warnings generated for new or modified Blender code. New bugs appear regularly, but most of them are boring or minor. With patience of a fisherman I'm sitting here waiting for something interesting that is worth writing about. And today's article is a case in point.

void UI_but_drag_set_asset(uiBut *but,
                           const AssetHandle *asset,
                           const char *path,
                           int import_type,
                           int icon,
                           struct ImBuf *imb,
                           float scale)
  asset_drag->asset_handle = MEM_mallocN(sizeof(asset_drag->asset_handle),
                                         "wmDragAsset asset handle");
  *asset_drag->asset_handle = *asset;

The code must allocate a buffer in memory sufficient to store a structure of the AssetHandle type. It is a programmer's intent. But it allocates a buffer equal not to the size of the structure, but to the size of the pointer.

Here is the error:


The correct version:


The analyzer detected this error and issued a warning: V568: It's odd that ' sizeof()' operator evaluates the size of a pointer to a class, but not the size of the 'asset_drag->asset_handle' class object. interface.c 6192

It's simple. It's a classic error pattern that we encounter in various projects. Something else is worth noting! This code works correctly now! The author who made it is lucky. Let's look at what the AssetHandle structure is:

typedef struct AssetHandle {
  const struct FileDirEntry *file_data;
} AssetHandle;

The structure now has exactly one pointer. It turns out that the size of the structure is the same as the size of the pointer!

Look at a pretty time bomb right in front of us. This code will work safely and steadily for years. It will function fully until someone wants to add a new field to the structure.

At this point, the app crashes. And it's not clear what and where exactly it crashed. Less memory allocates for the structure than is required. That's great if a programmer is lucky enough to get an Access Violation after violating the buffer boundary. But, more likely, some memory will simply get corrupted. As a result, a developer may be doomed to torturously debug code for hours.

Use static code analyzer to significantly improve the quality and reliability of code. It's useful both in the short and long term.

Static analysis can't detect all errors. However, the benefits of its regular use are greater than the cost of reviewing a daily report with new warnings. Recently, in the article, a user of our analyzer concluded: you'd better run the analyzer than debug for three days.

Popular related articles
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…

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 →