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

>
>
>
V701. Possible realloc() leak: when rea…
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

V701. Possible realloc() leak: when realloc() fails to allocate memory, original pointer is lost. Consider assigning realloc() to a temporary pointer.

Sep 08 2014

The analyzer has detected an expression of the 'foo = realloc(foo, ...)' pattern. This expression is potentially dangerous: it is recommended to save the result of the realloc function into a different variable.

The realloc(ptr, ...) function is used to change the size of some memory block. When it succeeds to do so without moving the data, the resulting pointer will coincide with the source ptr. When changing a memory block's size is impossible without moving it, the function will return the pointer to the new block while the old one will be freed. But when changing a memory block's size is currently impossible at all even with moving it, the function will return a null pointer. This situation may occur when allocating a large data array whose size is comparable to RAM size, and also when the memory is highly segmented. This third scenario is just what makes it potentially dangerous: if realloc(ptr, ...) returns a null pointer, the data block at the ptr address won't change in size. The main problem is that using a construct of the "ptr = realloc(ptr, ...)" pattern may cause losing the ptr pointer to this data block.

For example, see the following incorrect code taken from a real-life application:

void buffer::resize(unsigned int newSize)
{
  if (capacity < newSize)
  {
    capacity = newSize;
    ptr = (unsigned char *)realloc(ptr, capacity);
  }
}

The realloc(...) function changes the buffer size when the required buffer size is larger than the current one. But what will happen if realloc() fails to allocate memory? It will result in writing NULL into ptr, which by itself is enough to cause a lot of troubles, but more than that, the pointer to the source memory area will be lost. The correct code looks as follows:

void buffer::resize(unsigned int newSize)
{
  if (capacity < newSize)
  {
    capacity = newSize;
    unsigned char * tmp = (unsigned char *)realloc(ptr, capacity);
    if (tmp == NULL)
    {
      /* Handle exception; maybe throw something */
    } else
      ptr = tmp;
  }
}

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V701 diagnostic.