Our website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience.
Accept
to the top
close form

Fill out the form in 2 simple steps below:

Your contact information:

Step 1
Congratulations! This is your promo code!

Desired license type:

Step 2
Team license
Enterprise license
** By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement
close form
Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
Free PVS‑Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
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

close form
I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

close form
check circle
Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you do not see the email in your inbox, please check if it is filtered to one of the following folders:

  • Promotion
  • Updates
  • Spam

Webinar: C++ semantics - 06.11

>
>
>
V3023. Consider inspecting this express…
menu mobile close menu
Analyzer diagnostics
General Analysis (C++)
General Analysis (C#)
General Analysis (Java)
Micro-Optimizations (C++)
Diagnosis of 64-bit errors (Viva64, C++)
Customer specific requests (C++)
MISRA errors
AUTOSAR errors
OWASP errors (C#)
Problems related to code analyzer
Additional information
toggle menu Contents

V3023. Consider inspecting this expression. The expression is excessive or contains a misprint.

Dec 14 2015

The analyzer has detected a suspicious code fragment with a redundant comparison. There may be a superfluous check, in which case the expression can be simplified, or an error, which should be fixed.

Consider the following example:

if (firstVal == 3 && firstVal != 5)

This code is redundant as the condition will be true if 'firstVal == 3', so the second part of the expression just makes no sense.

There are two possible explanations here:

1) The second check is just unnecessary and the expression can be simplified. If so, the correct version of that code should look like this:

if (firstVal == 3)

2) There is a bug in the expression; the programmer wanted to use a different variable instead of 'firstVal'. Then the correct version of the code should look as follows:

if (firstVal == 3 && secondVal != 5)

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V3023 diagnostic.