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: Evaluation - 05.12

>
>
>
V502. The '?:' operator may not work as…
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++)
OWASP errors (C#)
Problems related to code analyzer
Additional information
toggle menu Contents

V502. The '?:' operator may not work as expected. The '?:' operator has a lower priority than the 'foo' operator.

Nov 19 2010

The analyzer found a code fragment that most probably has a logic error. The program text has an expression that contains the ternary operator '?:' and might be calculated in a different way than the programmer expects.

The '?:' operator has a lower priority than operators ||, &&, |, ^, &, !=, ==, >=, <=, >, <, >>, <<, -, +, %, /, *. One might forget about it and write an incorrect code like the following one:

bool bAdd = ...;
size_t rightLen = ...;
size_t newTypeLen = rightLen + bAdd ? 1 : 0;

Having forgotten that the '+' operator has a higher priority than the '?:' operator, the programmer expects that the code is equivalent to "rightLen + (bAdd ? 1 : 0)". But actually the code is equivalent to the expression "(rightLen + bAdd) ? 1 : 0".

The analyzer diagnoses the probable error by checking:

1) If there is a variable or subexpression of the bool type to the left of the '?:' operator.

2) If this subexpression is compared to / added to / multiplied by... the variable whose type is other than bool.

If these conditions hold, it is highly probable that there is an error in this code and the analyzer will generate the warning message we are discussing.

Here are some other examples of incorrect code:

bool b;
int x, y, z, h;
...
x = y < b ? z : h;
x = y + (z != h) ? 1 : 2;

The programmer most likely wanted to have the following correct code:

bool b;
int x, y, z, h;
...
x = y < (b ? z : h);
x = y + ((z != h) ? 1 : 2);

If there is a type other than bool to the left of the '?:' operator, the analyzer thinks that the code is written in the C style (where there is no bool) or that it is written using class objects and therefore the analyzer cannot find out if this code is dangerous or not.

Here is an example of correct code in the C style that the analyzer considers correct too:

int conditions1;
int conditions2;
int conditions3;
...
char x = conditions1 + conditions2 + conditions3 ? 'a' : 'b';

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V502 diagnostic.