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.

>
>
>
V733. It is possible that macro expansi…
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

V733. It is possible that macro expansion resulted in incorrect evaluation order.

Oct 28 2015

The analyzer has detected a potential error that has to do with the use of macros expanding into arithmetic expressions. One normally expects that the subexpression passed as a parameter into a macro will be executed first in the resulting expression. However, it may not be so, and this results in bugs that are difficult to diagnose.

Consider this example:

#define RShift(a) a >> 3
....
y = RShift(x & 0xFFF);

If we expand the macro, we'll get the following expression:

y = x & 0xFFF >> 3;

Operation ">>" has higher priority than "&". That's why the expression will be evaluated as "x & (0xFFF >> 3)", while the programmer expected it to be "(x & 0xFFF) >> 3".

To fix this, we need to put parentheses around the 'a' argument:

#define RShift(a) (a) >> 3

However, there is one more improvement we should make. It is helpful to parenthesize the whole expression in the macro as well. This is considered good style and can help avoid some other errors. This is what the final improved version of the sample code looks like:

#define RShift(a) ((a) >> 3)

Note. This diagnostic is similar to V1003. The latter is less accurate and produces more false positives since it deals with a macro declaration rather than the expanded macro. On the other hand, despite its flaws, diagnostic V1003 can detect errors that V733 cannot.

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V733 diagnostic.