code review

The Code Analyzer is wrong. Long live the Analyzer!

Combining many actions in a single C++ expression is a bad practice, as such code is hard to understand, maintain, and it is easy to make mistakes in it. For example, one can instill a bug by reconciling different actions when evaluating function arguments. We agree with the classic recommendation that code should be simple and clear. Now let's look at an interesting case where the PVS-Studio analyzer is technically wrong, but from a practical point of view, the code should still be changed.

The Code Analyzer is wrong. Long live the Analyzer!

by Andrey Karpov

From the article:

As you can see, once upon a time std::make_pair was taking arguments by value. If std::unique_ptr had existed at that time, then the code above would have been indeed incorrect. Whether this code would work or not would be a matter of luck. In practice, of course, this situation would never have occurred, since std::unique_ptr appeared in C++11 as a replacement for std::auto_ptr. Let's go back to our time. Starting with C++11, the constructor started to use move semantics.

Why it is important to apply static analysis for open libraries that you add to your project

If there are several options, it is useful to take time to analyze open libraries in order to choose the best one.

Why it is important to apply static analysis for open libraries that you add to your project

by Andrey Karpov

From the article:

Because of a typo, the original vector is returned, not the new scaledVector container. The same error occurs in the division operator. Facepalm. Again, these errors don't mean anything separately. Although, this is a hint that this library isn't used much and there is highly likely that there are other serious undetected errors in it.

Zero, one, two, Freddy's coming for you

The article might be of interest for authors of books, articles, and C++ coding standards. Based on the given material, you can discuss questions of C++ code quality and ways how to reduce the likelihood of errors' occurence.

Zero, one, two, Freddy's coming for you

by Andrey Karpov

From the article:

This post continues the series of articles, which can well be called «horrors for developers». This time it will also touch upon a typical pattern of typos related to the usage of numbers 0, 1, 2. The language you're writing in doesn't really matter: it can be C, C++, C#, or Java. If you're using constants 0, 1, 2 or variables' names contain these numbers, most likely, Freddie will come to visit you at night. Go on, read and don't say we didn't warn you.