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

>
>
>
V676. Incorrect comparison of BOOL type…
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

V676. Incorrect comparison of BOOL type variable with TRUE.

Oct 04 2013

The analyzer has detected an issue when a BOOL value is compared to the TRUE constant (or 1). This is a potential error, since the value "true" may be presented by any non-zero number.

Let's recall the difference between the types 'bool' and 'BOOL'.

The following construct:

bool x = ....;
if (x == true) ....

is absolutely correct. The 'bool' type may take only two values: true and false.

When dealing with the BOOL type, such checks are inadmissible. The BOOL type is actually the 'int' type, which means that it can store values other than zero and one. Any non-zero value is considered to be "true".

Values other than 1 may be returned, for example, by functions from Windows SDK.

The constants FALSE/TRUE are declared in the following way:

#define FALSE               0
#define TRUE                1

It means that the following comparison may fail:

BOOL ret = Some_SDK_Function();
if (TRUE == ret)
{
  // do something
}

It is not guaranteed that it is 1 that the function Some_SDK_Function() will return, if executed successfully. The correct code should look this:

if (FALSE != ret)

or:

if (ret)

For more information on this subject, I recommend you to study FAQ on the website CodeGuru: Visual C++ General: What is the difference between 'BOOL' and 'bool'?

When found in a real application, the error may look something like this:

if (CDialog::OnInitDialog() != TRUE )
  return FALSE;

The CDialog::OnInitDialog() function's description reads: "If OnInitDialog returns nonzero, Windows sets the input focus to the default location, the first control in the dialog box. The application can return 0 only if it has explicitly set the input focus to one of the controls in the dialog box."

Notice that there is not a word about TRUE or 1. The fixed code should be like this:

if (CDialog::OnInitDialog() == FALSE)
  return FALSE;

This code may run successfully for a long time, but no one can say for sure that it will be always like that.

A few words concerning false positives. The programmer may be sometimes absolutely sure that a BOOL variable will always have 0 or 1. In this case, you may suppress a false positive using one of the several techniques. However, you'd still better fix your code: it will be more reliable from the viewpoint of future refactoring.

This diagnostic is close to the V642 diagnostic.

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V676 diagnostic.