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 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.

>
>
>
V607. Ownerless expression 'Foo'.
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

V607. Ownerless expression 'Foo'.

Jun 07 2012

The analyzer has detected a potential error: an extra expression in the code. Such "lost" expressions most often occur in the code when the key word return is missing or due to careless code refactoring.

Consider this sample:

void Run(int &a, int b, int c, bool X)
{
  if (X)
    a = b + c;
  else
    b - c; 
}

The program text is incomplete because of the misprint. It compiles well but has no practical sense.

This is the correct code:

void Run(int &a, int b, int c, bool X)
{
  if (X)
    a = b + c;
  else
    a = b - c; 
}

Sometimes "lost" expressions do have practical sense. For example, the analyzer won't generate the warning for the following code:

struct A {};
struct B : public A {};
...
void Foo(B *p)
{
  static_cast<A*>(p);
  ...
}

The "static_cast<A*>(p);" expression here checks that the 'B' class is a inherits of the 'A' class. If it is not so, a compilation error will occur.

As another example, we can cite the following code intended to suppress the compiler-generated warnings about unused variables:

void Foo(int a, int b)
{
  a, b;
}

The analyzer won't generate the V607 warning in this case.

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V607 diagnostic.