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.

>
>
>
V783. Possible dereference of invalid 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#)
Problems related to code analyzer
Additional information
toggle menu Contents

V783. Possible dereference of invalid iterator 'X'.

Mar 29 2017

The analyzer detected a code fragment that may result in using an invalid iterator.

Consider the following examples that trigger this diagnostic message:

if (iter != vec.end() || *iter == 42) { ... }
if (iter == vec.end() && *iter == 42) { ... }

There is a logic error in all the conditions above that leads to dereferencing an invalid iterator. This error usually appears during code refactoring or because of a typo.

The fixed versions:

if (iter != vec.end() && *iter == 42) { ... }
if (iter == vec.end() || *iter == 42) { ... }

Of course, these are very simple cases. In practice, the check and the code using the iterator are often found in different lines. If you got the V783 warning, check the code above and try to find out why what made the analyzer treat the iterator as invalid.

Here is an example where the iterator is checked and used in different lines:

if (iter == vec.end()) {
  std::cout << "Error: " << *iter << std::endl;
  throw std::runtime_error("foo");
}

The analyzer will warn you about the issue in the '*iter' expression. Either it is an incorrect condition or some other variable should be used instead of 'iter'.

The analyzer can also detect cases when the iterator is used before being checked.

Consider the following example:

std::cout << "Element is " << *iter << std::endl;
if (iter == vec.end()) {
  throw std::runtime_error("");
}

The check here is meaningless because the possibly invalid iterator has been already dereferenced. There is a missing check:

if (iter != vec.end()) {
  std::cout << "Element is " << *iter << std::endl;
}
if (iter == vec.end()) {
  throw std::runtime_error("");
}

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V783 diagnostic.