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.

>
>
>
V796. A 'break' statement is probably m…
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

V796. A 'break' statement is probably missing in a 'switch' statement.

Jun 13 2017

The analyzer has detected a 'switch' statement with a missing 'break' statement in one of its branches. When executing this code, the control flow will move on to the next 'case'. This is probably a typo, and 'break' is needed.

Consider the following example:

for (char c : srcString)
{
  switch (c)
  {
    case 't':
      *s++ = '\t';
      break;

    case 'n':
      *s++ = '\n';
      break;

    case 'f':
      *s++ = '\f'; // <=

    case '0':
      *s++ = '\0';
  }
}

If it is a mistake, then you should add 'break' statement. If there is no error, then you should leave a hint to the analyzer and your colleagues, who will maintain the code in the future.

There are a number of ways to specify that this behavior is intentional. One way is to add a comment:

case A:
  foo();
  // fall through
case B:
  bar();

'fallthrough' attributes are also supported:

__attribute__((fallthrough));
[[fallthrough]];
[[gnu::fallthrough]];
[[clang::fallthrough]];

The diagnostic also includes a number of heuristic rules to make false positives fewer. For example, the warning is not issued when 'break' is missing in every 'case'. If the 'switch' already has comments or 'fallthrough' attributes, it will trigger the diagnostic all the same because such code looks even more suspicious.

The warning is not issued when other statements interrupting execution of the 'switch' are used instead of 'break' (these are 'return', 'throw', and the like).

False positives are possible since the analyzer cannot figure out for sure if a certain fragment is an error or not. To eliminate them, use 'fallthrough' attributes or comments. Such comments will, in the first place, help other developers who will maintain the code in the future; compilers and static analyzers will also be able to recognize them.

If there are too many false positives, you can turn this diagnostic off or use one of the false positive suppression mechanisms.

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V796 diagnostic.

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