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.

>
>
>
V659. Functions' declarations with 'Foo…
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

V659. Functions' declarations with 'Foo' name differ in 'const' keyword only, while these functions' bodies have different composition. It is suspicious and can possibly be an error.

Jan 22 2013

The analyzer has detected two functions with identical names in the code. The functions are different in the constancy parameter.

Function declarations may differ in:

  • the constancy of the returned value;
  • the constancy of arguments;
  • the constancy of the function itself (in case of class methods).

Although the names of the functions coincide, they work differently. It may be a sign of an error.

Consider a simple case:

class CLASS {
  DATA *m_data;
public:
  char operator[](size_t index) const {
    if (!m_data || index >= m_data->len)
      throw MyException;
    return m_data->data[index];
   }

  char &operator[](size_t index) {
    return m_data->data[index];
  }
};

The constant function 'operator[]' contains a check so that an exception is thrown in case of an error. A non-constant function doesn't contain such a check. This is most likely a slip-up that should be fixed.

The analyzer takes into account a set of different situations when the differences in function bodies are reasonable. But we cannot account for all the exceptional cases. So, if the analyzer has generated a false positive, you can suppress it using the "//-V659" comment.