{"id":382604,"date":"2024-06-29T04:22:57","date_gmt":"2024-06-29T04:22:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/?p=382604"},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-29T21:00:00","slug":"","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/?p=382604","title":{"rendered":"How PVS-Studio prevents rash code changes, example N3<\/span>"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\"Blender,
Let’s continue with a series of small notes illustrating the PVS-Studio’s ability to quickly find new errors in the code. If the analyzer is regularly used, of course :). Today we have another bug in the Blender project.<\/p>\n

<\/a> <\/p>\n

I monitor the Blender<\/a> project for fun. Every day I get a PVS-Studio<\/a> report with warnings related to the new code. Sometimes an error catches my attention and I write a note about it. That’s what I’m doing right now :).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I won’t give you links to the previous articles, since they are of the same type. With these articles I want to show you that regular use of the static analyzer helps quickly find errors. The earlier the error is found, the lower the cost of fixing it.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This time my attention was caught by two PVS-Studio warnings. The analyzer was triggered by one code line:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n