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--
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB
* 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.

>
>
>
V1063. The modulo by 1 operation is mea…
Analyzer Diagnostics
General Analysis (C++)
General Analysis (C#)
General Analysis (Java)
Diagnosis of micro-optimizations (C++)
Diagnosis of 64-bit errors (Viva64, C++)
MISRA errors
AUTOSAR errors
Additional information
Contents

V1063. The modulo by 1 operation is meaningless. The result will always be zero.

Aug. 12, 2020

The analyzer has detected a strange expression with a modulo by 1 operation. Such an expression will always evaluate to 0.

A common pattern of this error is checking if no remainder is left after dividing a value by another value. To do this, you use the modulo operation and compare the result with 0 or 1. Making a typo at this point is easy because since you anticipate the value 1, you may accidentally divide by 1 too. For example:

if (x % 1 == 1)
{
    ....
}

A modulo by 1 operation was applied to the 'x' variable, which will result in the 'x % 1' expression always evaluating to 0 no matter the value of 'x'. Therefore, the condition will always be false. The programmer must have intended to use the modulo by '2' operation:

if (x % 2 == 1)
{
    ....
}

The following example is taken from a real application (stickies):

void init (....)
{
  srand(GetTickCount() + rand());

  updateFreq1 = (rand() % 1) + 1;
  updateFreq2 = (rand() % 1) + 1;
  updateFreq3 = (rand() % 1) + 1;
  updateFreq4 = (rand() % 1) + 1;

  waveFreq1 = (rand() % 15);
  waveFreq2 = (rand() % 3);
  waveFreq3 = (rand() % 16);
  waveFreq4 = (rand() % 4);
  // ....
}

The variables 'updateFreq1', 'updateFreq2', 'updateFreq3', and 'updateFreq4' will always be initialized to the value 1. Each of these variables was probably meant to be initialized to some pseudorandom value, which most likely falls within the range [1..2]. In that case, the correct version should look like this:

updateFreq1 = (rand() % 2) + 1;
updateFreq2 = (rand() % 2) + 1;
updateFreq3 = (rand() % 2) + 1;
updateFreq4 = (rand() % 2) + 1;

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V1063 diagnostic.

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