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.

C# Programmer, it's time to test yourse…

C# Programmer, it's time to test yourself and find error

Feb 01 2021

The PVS-Studio analyzer is regularly updated with new diagnostic rules. Curiously enough, diagnostics often detect suspicious code fragments before the end of the work. For example, such a situation may happen while testing on open-source projects. So, let's take a look at one of these interesting findings.


As mentioned earlier, one of the stages of diagnostic rule testing is to check its operation on a real codebase. To that end, we have a set of selected open-source projects that we use for the analysis. The obvious advantage of this approach is the ability to see the diagnostic rule behavior in real conditions. There's also a less obvious advantage. Sometimes you may find such an interesting case, so it would be a sin not to write an article about it. :)

Now, let's take a look at the code from the Bouncy Castle C# project and find the error in it:

public static string ToString(object[] a)
  StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder('[');
  if (a.Length > 0)
    for (int index = 1; index < a.Length; ++index)
      sb.Append(", ").Append(a[index]);
  return sb.ToString();

For those who like to cheat and peek, I added a picture to keep you guessing.


I'm sure some of you couldn't see the error without using the IDE or the StringBuilder class documentation. The error happened when calling the constructor:

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder('[');

Actually, this is exactly what the PVS-Studio static analyzer warns us about: V3165 Character literal '[' is passed as an argument of the 'Int32' type whereas similar overload with the string parameter exists. Perhaps, a string literal should be used instead. Arrays.cs 193.

The programmer wanted to create an instance of the StringBuilder type, where the string begins with the '[' character. However, due to a typo, we'll have an object without any characters with a capacity of 91 elements.

This happened because the programmer used single quotes instead of double-quotes. That's why the wrong constructor overload was called:

public StringBuilder(int capacity);
public StringBuilder(string? value);

When the constructor is called, the '[' character literal will be implicitly cast to the corresponding value of the int type (91 in Unicode). Because of this, the constructor with the int type parameter setting the initial capacity will be called. Although, the programmer wanted to call the constructor which sets the string's beginning.

To fix the error, the developer has to replace the character literal with a string literal (i.e., use "[" instead of '['). It will cause the correct constructor overload.

We decided to go the extra mile and expanded the cases reviewed by diagnostic. As a result, in addition to character literals, some other expressions of the char type are considered now. We also check methods in the same way.

The diagnostic described above was added in the PVS-Studio 7.11 release. You can download the analyzer latest version yourself. You'll see what the V3165 diagnostic can do, as well as other diagnostics for C, C++, C#, and Java.

By the way, the users themselves often suggest some ideas of diagnostics to us. This time it has happened thanks to the user of Krypt from Habr. If you also have some ideas for diagnostic rules - don't hesitate to reach out to us!

P.S. This error has already been fixed in the current project code base. Though, this doesn't change the fact that it has existed in the code for some time, and that static analysis allows you to identify such problems and fix them at the earliest stages.

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…
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…
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…
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 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…
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…
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…
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 →