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.

V3056. Consider reviewing the correctne…
Analyzer diagnostics
General Analysis (C++)
General Analysis (C#)
General Analysis (Java)
Diagnosis of 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

V3056. Consider reviewing the correctness of 'X' item's usage.

Jan 29 2016

The analyzer has found a possible typo in code. There is a certain evident pattern in the code that was broken. For instance, the 'GetX' method was used twice instead of 'GetX' and 'GetY' respectively for initializing variables 'x' and 'y'.

Consider the example:

int x = GetX() * n;
int y = GetX() * n;

In the second line, function GetX() is used instead of GetY(). The fixed version:

int x = GetX() * n;
int y = GetY() * n;

To detect this error, the analyzer uses the following logic. There is a line with a name containing fragment "X". Nearby is a line with an antipode name containing fragment "Y". But the second line also contains the name with "X". If this and a few other conditions are true, this construct is treated as dangerous and the analyzer suggests reviewing it. If, for example, there were no variables "x" and "y" in the left part, the warning wouldn't be triggered. Here is an example that the analyzer would ignore:

array[0] = GetX() / 2;
array[1] = GetX() / 2;

Unfortunately, this diagnostic produces false positives since the analyzer doesn't know the program structure and the purpose of the code. Consider, for example, the following test code:

var t1 = new Thread { Name = "Thread 1" };
var t2 = new Thread { Name = "Thread 2" };
var m1 = new Message { Name = "Thread 1: Message 1", Thread = t1};
var m2 = new Message { Name = "Thread 1: Message 2", Thread = t1};
var m3 = new Message { Name = "Thread 2: Message 1", Thread = t2};

The analyzer assumes that variable 'm2' was declared using copy-paste and it led to an error: variable 't1' is used instead of 't2'. But there is no error actually. As the messages suggest, this code tests the printing of messages 'm1' and 'm2' from thread 't1' and of message 'm3' from thread 't2'. For cases like this, the analyzer allows you to suppress the warning by adding the comment "//-V3056" or through other false-positive suppression mechanisms.

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V3056 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 →