V602. The '<' operator should probably be replaced with '<<'. Consider inspecting this expression.

The analyzer has detected a potential error that may be caused by a misprint. It is highly probable that the '<<' operator must be used instead of '<' in an expression.

Consider the following code sample.

void Foo(unsigned nXNegYNegZNeg, unsigned nXNegYNegZPos,
         unsigned nXNegYPosZNeg, unsigned nXNegYPosZPos)
{
  unsigned m_nIVSampleDirBitmask =
    (1 << nXNegYNegZNeg) | (1 <  nXNegYNegZPos) |
    (1 << nXNegYPosZNeg) | (1 << nXNegYPosZPos);
  ...
}

The code contains an error, since it is the '<' operator that is written by accident in the expression. This is the correct code:

unsigned m_nIVSampleDirBitmask =
  (1 << nXNegYNegZNeg) | (1 << nXNegYNegZPos) |
  (1 << nXNegYPosZNeg) | (1 << nXNegYPosZPos);

Note.

The analyzer considers comparisons ('<', '>') odd if their result is used in binary operations such as '&', '|' or '^'. The diagnostic is more complex but we hope you understand the point in general. On finding such expressions the analyzer emits the V602 warning.

If the analyzer produces a false positive error, you may suppress it using the "//-V602" comment. But in most cases you'd better rewrite this code. It's not a good practice to handle expressions of the 'bool' type using binary operators: it makes the code unevident and less readable.

This diagnostic is classified as:

Was this page helpful?

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

If you can’t find an answer to your question, fill in the form below and our developers will contact you

By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement