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

>
>
>
V6099. The initial value of the index i…
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

V6099. The initial value of the index in the nested loop equals 'i'. Consider using 'i + 1' instead.

Nov 02 2020

The analyzer has detected a faulty or suboptimal loop. A standard pattern is used where some operation is executed for every pair of elements of an array. This operation, however, is usually not required for a pair whose members are the same element, i.e. when 'i == j'.

For example:

for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
  for (int j = i; j < size; j++)
    ....

It is highly possible that a more correct and effective way to traverse the arrays would probably be this:

for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
  for (int j = i + 1; j < size; j++)
    ....

This diagnostic is classified as: