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.

>
>
>
V532. Consider inspecting the statement…
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

V532. Consider inspecting the statement of '*pointer++' pattern. Probably meant: '(*pointer)++'.

Sept. 12, 2011

The analyzer detected a potential error: a pointer dereferencing operation is present in code but the value the pointer refers to is not used in any way.

Let's study this sample:

int *p;
...
*p++;

The "*p++" expression performs the following actions. The "p" pointer is incremented by one, but before that a value of the "int" type is fetched from memory. This value is not used in any way, which is strange. It looks as if the dereferencing operation "*" is unnecessary. There are several ways of correcting the code:

1) We may remove the unnecessary dereferencing operation - the "*p++;" expression is equal to "p++;":

int *p;
...
p++;

2) If the developer intended to increment the value instead of the pointer, we should write it so:

int *p;
...
(*p)++;

If the "*p++" expression's result is used, the analyzer considers the code correct. This is a sample of safe code:

while(*src)
 *dest++ = *src++;

Let's study a sample taken from a real application:

STDMETHODIMP CCustomAutoComplete::Next(
  ULONG celt, LPOLESTR *rgelt, ULONG *pceltFetched)
{
  ...
  if (pceltFetched != NULL)
    *pceltFetched++;
  ...

In this case, parentheses are missing. This is the correct code:

if (pceltFetched != NULL)
    (*pceltFetched)++;

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V532 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