To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (a basic version)
Enterprise License (an extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

Free PVS-Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

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

I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

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.

>
>
>
V659. Functions' declarations with 'Foo…
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
OWASP errors (C#)
Additional information
Contents

V659. Functions' declarations with 'Foo' name differ in 'const' keyword only, while these functions' bodies have different composition. It is suspicious and can possibly be an error.

Jan 22 2013

The analyzer has detected two functions with identical names in the code. The functions are different in the constancy parameter.

Function declarations may differ in:

  • the constancy of the returned value;
  • the constancy of arguments;
  • the constancy of the function itself (in case of class methods).

Although the names of the functions coincide, they work differently. It may be a sign of an error.

Consider a simple case:

class CLASS {
  DATA *m_data;
public:
  char operator[](size_t index) const {
    if (!m_data || index >= m_data->len)
      throw MyException;
    return m_data->data[index];
   }

  char &operator[](size_t index) {
    return m_data->data[index];
  }
};

The constant function 'operator[]' contains a check so that an exception is thrown in case of an error. A non-constant function doesn't contain such a check. This is most likely a slip-up that should be fixed.

The analyzer takes into account a set of different situations when the differences in function bodies are reasonable. But we cannot account for all the exceptional cases. So, if the analyzer has generated a false positive, you can suppress it using the "//-V659" comment.

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