PVS-Studio team creates new diagnostic rules, and gradually refines the existing ones. We've recently enhanced one of the oldest diagnostic rules in the C# analyzerPVS-Studio team creates new diagnostic rules, and gradually refines the existing ones. We've recently enhanced one of the oldest diagnostic rules in the C# analyzer

How to Prevent Your Code From Turning Into Sausage That Goes Beyond the Screen

Today, we’ll talk about a bug that shows in practice and how "code sausage" can cause a series of problems related to the last line effect and careless copy-paste, as well as lead to new errors.

\ The PVS-Studio team not only creates new diagnostic rules, but also gradually refines the existing ones. For example, we've recently enhanced one of the oldest diagnostic rules in the C# analyzer, V3001, to make it detect redundant parentheses more accurately. As a result, the analyzer started detecting new bugs, one of which we show you.

\ This case was detected in the Space Engineers project; this is one of the projects in our internal regression testing database. We use a specific old project version to compare how the analyzer behaves on the same code across updates. But if we look at the latest source code, we'll find that the bug is still there. Let's take a look at the Contains function in BoundingBox.cs.

\ See the problem? Probably not.

\ Why's that? Because long and indecipherable code lines are developers' foes that should be avoided. It's very easy to make a mistake there, as you can see. Let's rewrite the code a little bit to make it clearer.

public ContainmentType Contains(BoundingSphere sphere) { Vector3 result1; Vector3.Clamp(ref sphere.Center, ref this.Min, ref this.Max, out result1); float result2; Vector3.DistanceSquared(ref sphere.Center, ref result1, out result2); float num = sphere.Radius; if ((double)result2 > (double)num * (double)num) return ContainmentType.Disjoint; return (double)this.Min.X + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.X || (double)sphere.Center.X > (double)this.Max.X - (double)num || ((double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num || (double)this.Min.Y + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.Y) || ((double)sphere.Center.Y > (double)this.Max.Y - (double)num || (double)this.Max.Y - (double)this.Min.Y <= (double)num || ((double)this.Min.Z + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.Z || (double)sphere.Center.Z > (double)this.Max.Z - (double)num)) || (double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num ? ContainmentType.Intersects : ContainmentType.Contains; }

\ Better now, yeah? However, we have to make an effort to spot the error, though. Take a look at the last line of the logical condition:

(double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num

\ As we can see, it duplicates the third line. The condition is enclosed in extra parentheses, but they're superfluous, as all checks are joined with the OR operator anyway.

\ In practice, there should be a check of the Z coordinate:

(double)this.Max.Z - (double)this.Min.Z <= (double)num

\ The analyzer detects it and issues a warning: V3001 There are identical sub-expressions '(double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num' to the left and to the right of the '||' operator.

\ This is a good example of how a static analyzer complements code review because it's strenuous to manually discern a little typo in such a massive line. We like to call such code "code sausage"—and we've already written a note about how it lures bugs to your code.

\ The "last line effect" is also shown in all its glory. Typos most often appear at the end of similar code fragments. Technically, we can't talk about lines, since there is a single line. However, the idea still applies: the error occurred in the very last segment of a long, repetitive block.

\ The bug came from a copy-paste typo. Most likely, developers have copied one sub-expression, pasted it as a new one, and just forgotten to modify it. However, that's not all: this entire line with the error has been copied again and shows up just a few lines below, in the nearby Contains function:

public void Contains(ref BoundingSphere sphere, out ContainmentType result) { .... if ((double)result2 > (double)num * (double)num) result = ContainmentType.Disjoint; else result = (double)this.Min.X + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.X || (double)sphere.Center.X > (double)this.Max.X - (double)num || ((double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num || (double)this.Min.Y + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.Y) || ((double)sphere.Center.Y > (double)this.Max.Y - (double)num || (double)this.Max.Y - (double)this.Min.Y <= (double)num || ((double)this.Min.Z + (double)num > (double)sphere.Center.Z || (double)sphere.Center.Z > (double)this.Max.Z - (double)num)) || (double)this.Max.X - (double)this.Min.X <= (double)num ? ContainmentType.Intersects : ContainmentType.Contains; }

It's the same issue with the same warning from the analyzer.

Conclusion

There's no need to go into a long explanation of why this code is problematic, as well as how it should be changed to avoid specific errors. Our readers probably already know that it all comes down to following these tips:

  1. Use table-style code formatting.
  2. Place the similar code in functions.
  3. Avoid redundant operations. For example, instead of type casting of (double)num everywhere, we could simply declare the num variable as double.
  4. Run PVS-Studio static analyzer regularly for additional control.

\

Market Opportunity
PVS Logo
PVS Price(PVS)
$0.001968
$0.001968$0.001968
+1.39%
USD
PVS (PVS) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Social engineering kost crypto miljarden in 2025

Social engineering kost crypto miljarden in 2025

De grootste dreiging voor crypto zit niet altijd in bugs of fouten in de code. Vaak gaat het fout bij mensen zelf. Nieuwe cijfers over 2025 laten zien hoe misleiding
Share
Coinstats2025/12/26 03:01
Christmas Stocking Stuffers? Don't Ignore These Bitcoin Mining Stocks That Gave Impressive Returns In 2025

Christmas Stocking Stuffers? Don't Ignore These Bitcoin Mining Stocks That Gave Impressive Returns In 2025

Christmas brings cheer, cakes and cozy vibes, but it can also be a perfect time for kicking off investments you may not have considered before.read more
Share
Coinstats2025/12/26 03:01
China Blocks Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D as Local Chips Rise

China Blocks Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D as Local Chips Rise

The post China Blocks Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D as Local Chips Rise appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. China Blocks Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D as Local Chips Rise China’s internet regulator has ordered the country’s biggest technology firms, including Alibaba and ByteDance, to stop purchasing Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D GPUs. According to the Financial Times, the move shuts down the last major channel for mass supplies of American chips to the Chinese market. Why Beijing Halted Nvidia Purchases Chinese companies had planned to buy tens of thousands of RTX Pro 6000D accelerators and had already begun testing them in servers. But regulators intervened, halting the purchases and signaling stricter controls than earlier measures placed on Nvidia’s H20 chip. Image: Nvidia An audit compared Huawei and Cambricon processors, along with chips developed by Alibaba and Baidu, against Nvidia’s export-approved products. Regulators concluded that Chinese chips had reached performance levels comparable to the restricted U.S. models. This assessment pushed authorities to advise firms to rely more heavily on domestic processors, further tightening Nvidia’s already limited position in China. China’s Drive Toward Tech Independence The decision highlights Beijing’s focus on import substitution — developing self-sufficient chip production to reduce reliance on U.S. supplies. “The signal is now clear: all attention is focused on building a domestic ecosystem,” said a representative of a leading Chinese tech company. Nvidia had unveiled the RTX Pro 6000D in July 2025 during CEO Jensen Huang’s visit to Beijing, in an attempt to keep a foothold in China after Washington restricted exports of its most advanced chips. But momentum is shifting. Industry sources told the Financial Times that Chinese manufacturers plan to triple AI chip production next year to meet growing demand. They believe “domestic supply will now be sufficient without Nvidia.” What It Means for the Future With Huawei, Cambricon, Alibaba, and Baidu stepping up, China is positioning itself for long-term technological independence. Nvidia, meanwhile, faces…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:37