On the JSConf US conference in December 2015 the developers announced that they were planning to make open the source code of Chakra key components, a JavaScript-engine, operating in Microsoft Edge. Recently the ChackraCore source code became available under the MIT license in the corresponding repository on GitHub. In this article you will find interesting code fragments that were detected with the help of PVS-Studio code analyzer.

1. ChakraCore: analysis of JavaScript-engine
for Microsoft Edge
Author: Svyatoslav Razmyslov
Date: 22.01.2016
On the JSConf US conference in December 2015 the developers announced that they were planning to
make open the source code of Chakra key components, a JavaScript-engine, operating in Microsoft
Edge. Recently the ChackraCore source code became available under the MIT license in the
corresponding repository on GitHub. In this article you will find interesting code fragments that were
detected with the help of PVS-Studio code analyzer.
Introduction
ChakraCore is the core part of Chakra, the high-performance JavaScript engine that powers Microsoft
Edge and Windows applications written in HTML/CSS/JS. ChakraCore supports Just-in-time (JIT)
compilation of JavaScript for x86/x64/ARM, garbage collection, and a wide range of the latest JavaScript
features.
PVS-Studio is a static analyzer for bug detection in the source code of programs, written in C, C++ and
C#. PVS-Studio tool is designed for developers of contemporary applications and integrates into the
Visual Studio environments of 2010-2015.
In an article on an open source project check, we report only about a limited number of all of the
warnings issued by the analyzer, therefore we recommend the authors of the project to run the analyzer
on their code themselves and study complete analysis results. We also provide developers of open
source projects with a temporary key.

2. Various errors
V501 There are identical sub-expressions 'this->propId == Js::PropertyIds::_superReferenceSymbol' to
the left and to the right of the '||' operator. diagobjectmodel.cpp 123
IDiagObjectModelDisplay * ResolvedObject::CreateDisplay()
{
....
if (this->isConst ||
this->propId == Js::PropertyIds::_superReferenceSymbol ||
this->propId == Js::PropertyIds::_superReferenceSymbol)
{
pOMDisplay->SetDefaultTypeAttribute(....);
}
....
}
There two similar checks in the condition. Probably, while writing the code, a programmer accidentally
chose the same constant in the IntelliSense menu, for instance, instead of "Js::PropertyIds::
_superCtorReferenceSymbol".
V501 There are identical sub-expressions 'GetVarSymID(srcIndexOpnd->GetStackSym())' to the left and
to the right of the '==' operator. globopt.cpp 20795
void GlobOpt::EmitMemop(....)
{
....
IR::RegOpnd *srcBaseOpnd = nullptr;
IR::RegOpnd *srcIndexOpnd = nullptr;
IRType srcType;
GetMemOpSrcInfo(...., srcBaseOpnd, srcIndexOpnd, srcType);
Assert(GetVarSymID(srcIndexOpnd->GetStackSym()) == // <=
GetVarSymID(srcIndexOpnd->GetStackSym())); // <=
....
}

3. Two more identical comparisons. Most likely "srcIndexOpnd->GetStackSym()" was meant to be
compared with "srcBaseOpnd ->GetStackSym()" .
V517 The use of 'if (A) {...} else if (A) {...}' pattern was detected. There is a probability of logical error
presence. Check lines: 3220, 3231. lower.cpp 3220
bool Lowerer::GenerateFastBrSrEq(....,
IR::RegOpnd * srcReg1,
IR::RegOpnd * srcReg2,
....)
{
if (srcReg2 && IsConstRegOpnd(srcReg2))
{
....
}
else if (srcReg1 && IsConstRegOpnd(srcReg1))
{
....
}
else if (srcReg2 && (srcReg2->m_sym->m_isStrConst))
{
....
}
else if (srcReg1 && (srcReg1->m_sym->m_isStrConst)) // <=
{
....
}
else if (srcReg2 && (srcReg2->m_sym->m_isStrEmpty))
{
....
}
else if (srcReg1 && (srcReg1->m_sym->m_isStrConst)) // <=
{
....
}
return false;
}
The analyzer detected two similar checks in the cascade of conditional operators; as a result a code
block in the last condition never gets control. Full code of the given example is very long and it's hard to
notice a misprint. It is a good example, showing benefits from using a static code analyzer during the
work with similar code, when the programmer gets quickly tired and lets his guard down.
Most likely, last two conditions were meant to be like this:
....
else if (srcReg2 && (srcReg2->m_sym->m_isStrEmpty))
{
....
}
else if (srcReg1 && (srcReg1->m_sym-> m_isStrEmpty)) // <=
{
....
}

4. V713 The pointer scriptContext was utilized in the logical expression before it was verified against
nullptr in the same logical expression. diaghelpermethodwrapper.cpp 214
template <bool doCheckParentInterpreterFrame>
void HandleHelperOrLibraryMethodWrapperException(....)
{
....
if (!exceptionObject->IsDebuggerSkip() ||
exceptionObject == scriptContext->GetThreadContext()->.... ||
exceptionObject == scriptContext->GetThreadContext()->.... ||
!scriptContext) // <=
{
throw exceptionObject->CloneIfStaticExceptionObject(....);
}
....
}
Dereference of "scriptContext" pointer is done before its validity is checked. It was luck that such a bug
wasn't noticed and didn't affect the program. Such bugs can live in the code for a very long time and
show up in rare atypical situations.
V570 The 'this->isInlined' variable is assigned to itself. functioncodegenjittimedata.h 625
void SetupRecursiveInlineeChain(
Recycler *const recycler,
const ProfileId profiledCallSiteId)
{
if (!inlinees)
{
inlinees = RecyclerNewArrayZ(....);
}
inlinees[profiledCallSiteId] = this;
inlineeCount++;
this->isInlined = isInlined; // <=
}
It's very suspicious that the same value is stored in the 'isInlined' boolean variable. Most likely the
programmer intended to write something else.
Here is one more fragment, where the variable is assigned to itself:
 V570 The 'sym->m_isTaggableIntConst' variable is assigned to itself. linearscan.cpp 3170
V590 Consider inspecting the 'sub[i] != '-' && sub[i] == '/'' expression. The expression is excessive or
contains a misprint. rl.cpp 1388
const char *
stristr
(
const char * str,
const char * sub
)
{
....
for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
{

5. if (tolower(str[i]) != tolower(sub[i]))
{
if ((str[i] != '/' && str[i] != '-') ||
(sub[i] != '-' && sub[i] == '/')) { / <=
// if the mismatch is not between '/' and '-'
break;
}
}
}
....
}
The analyzer detected, that a part of the (sub[i] != '-') conditional expression doesn't influence the check
result. To make sure, let's have a look at the truth table. Most likely there is a misprint here; it's hard to
say how to write this code correctly.
V603 The object was created but it is not being used. If you wish to call constructor, 'this-
>StringCopyInfo::StringCopyInfo(....)' should be used. stringcopyinfo.cpp 64
void StringCopyInfo::InstantiateForceInlinedMembers()
{
AnalysisAssert(false);
StringCopyInfo copyInfo;
JavascriptString *const string = nullptr;
wchar_t *const buffer = nullptr;
(StringCopyInfo()); // <=
(StringCopyInfo(string, buffer)); // <=
copyInfo.SourceString();
copyInfo.DestinationBuffer();
}
Programmers often make mistakes, trying to explicitly call the constructor to initialize the object. In this
example we see new unnamed objects of "StringCopyInfo" type that get created and then immediately
destroyed. As a result, the class fields are left uninitialized.
The correct solution would be to create an initialization function and call it from the constructors in this
fragment as well.
V610 Undefined behavior. Check the shift operator '<<'. The left operand '-1' is negative. constants.h 39
class Constants
{
public:
....
static const int Int31MinValue = -1 << 30;
....
};

6. According to the latest standard of the C++ language, a shift of a negative number results in undefined
behavior.
V557 Array overrun is possible. The value of 'i' index could reach 8. rl.cpp 2375
enum TestInfoKind::_TIK_COUNT = 9
const char * const TestInfoEnvLstFmt[] =
{
" TESTFILE="%s"",
" BASELINE="%s"",
" CFLAGS="%s"",
" LFLAGS="%s"",
NULL,
NULL,
NULL,
NULL // <= TestInfoEnvLstFmt[7]
};
void
WriteEnvLst
(
Test * pDir, TestList * pTestList
)
{
....
// print the other TIK_*
for(int i=0;i < _TIK_COUNT; i++) {
if (variants->testInfo.data[i] && TestInfoEnvLstFmt[i]){// <=
LstFilesOut->Add(TestInfoEnvLstFmt[i], // <=
variants->testInfo.data[i]);
}
....
}
....
}
The analyzer detected that array index is out of bounds. The things is that the for() loop performs 9
iterations, but there are only 8 elements in the "TestInfoEnvLstFmt[]" array.
Perhaps, one more NULL was forgotten in the end:
const char * const TestInfoEnvLstFmt[] =
{
" TESTFILE="%s"",
" BASELINE="%s"",
" CFLAGS="%s"",
" LFLAGS="%s"",
NULL,
NULL,
NULL,
NULL // <= TestInfoEnvLstFmt[7]
NULL // <= TestInfoEnvLstFmt[8]
};
But there is a chance that some string is missing in the middle of the array!

7. Dangerous pointers
V595 diagnostic looks for such code fragments where the pointer is dereferenced before it is compared
with null. Usually in the projects there are several of such warnings. Such an error holds the record in
out error base according to the number of issues found (see examples). But in general V595 diagnostics
are too boring to give a lot of examples from a project. Also the check and dereference of a pointer can
be located quite far away from each other in the function, having dozens or even hundreds of strings
between them; that makes the explanation of this bug more complicated in the scope of an article.
That's why I'll provide several short examples of the code that most probably contain an error related to
the pointer handling.
V595 The 'instrLd' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 1823, 1831.
flowgraph.cpp 1823
IR::Instr *
FlowGraph::PeepTypedCm(IR::Instr *instr)
{
....
if (instrLd && !instrLd->GetSrc1()->IsEqual(instr->GetDst()))
{
return nullptr;
}
if(instrLd2 && !instrLd2->GetSrc1()->IsEqual(instrLd->GetDst()))
{
return nullptr;
}
....
}
Have a look at the pointer with the name "instrLd". In the first case we see that it is dereferenced and
compared with null, in the second case a programmer forgot to do so, that's why it can cause null
pointer dereference.
V595 The 'src2Val' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 9717, 9725.
globopt.cpp 9717

8. bool GlobOpt::TypeSpecializeIntBinary(....)
{
....
bool isIntConstMissingItem = src2Val->GetValueInfo()->....
if(isIntConstMissingItem)
{
isIntConstMissingItem = Js::SparseArraySegment<int>::....
}
if (!src2Val || !(src2Val->GetValueInfo()->IsLikelyInt()) ||
isIntConstMissingItem)
{
return false;
}
....
}
Pointer "Src2Val" is used at the beginning of the function, but then the developers actively began
checking whether this pointer is equal to zero.
V595 The 'm_lastInstr' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 214, 228.
irbuilderasmjs.cpp 214
void
IRBuilderAsmJs::AddInstr(IR::Instr * instr, uint32 offset)
{
m_lastInstr->InsertAfter(instr); // <=
if (offset != Js::Constants::NoByteCodeOffset)
{
....
}
else if (m_lastInstr) // <=
{
instr->SetByteCodeOffset(m_lastInstr->GetByteCodeOffset());
}
m_lastInstr = instr;
....
}
One more example of careless use of a pointer that can potentially be a null pointer.
A list of similar fragments:
 V595 The 'arrayData' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 868,
870. immutablelist.h 868
 V595 The 'pMembersList' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines:
2012, 2015. diagobjectmodel.cpp 2012
 V595 The 'walkerRef' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines:
3191, 3193. diagobjectmodel.cpp 3191
 V595 The 'block->loop' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines:
981, 1002. globopt.cpp 981
 V595 The 'src2Val' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 12528,
12536. globopt.cpp 12528

9.  V595 The 'symDst' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 1966,
1967. irbuilderasmjs.cpp 1966
 V595 The 'symDst' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 2010,
2011. irbuilderasmjs.cpp 2010
 V595 The 'symDst' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 2076,
2077. irbuilderasmjs.cpp 2076
 V595 The 'symDst' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 3591,
3592. irbuilderasmjs.cpp 3591
 V595 The 'symDst' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 4113,
4114. irbuilderasmjs.cpp 4113
 V595 The 'symDst' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines: 4510,
4511. irbuilderasmjs.cpp 4510
 V595 The 'm_lastInstr' pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr. Check lines:
1102, 1116. irbuilder.cpp 1102
This list shows some simplest and clearest examples. To examine all fragments like that, developers
should have a look at the analysis result themselves.
V522 Dereferencing of the null pointer 'tempNumberTracker' might take place. backwardpass.cpp 578
void
BackwardPass::MergeSuccBlocksInfo(BasicBlock * block)
{
TempNumberTracker * tempNumberTracker = nullptr; // <= line 346
....
if (!block->isDead)
{
....
if(!IsCollectionPass())
{
....
if (this->DoMarkTempNumbers())
{
tempNumberTracker = JitAnew(....); // <= line 413
}
....
....
if (blockSucc->tempNumberTracker != nullptr)
{
....
tempNumberTracker->MergeData(....); // <= line 578
if (deleteData)
{
blockSucc->tempNumberTracker = nullptr;
}
}
....
}
Example of another diagnostic which is also connected with the pointers. Here is a code fragment of the
MergeSuccBlocksInfo() function, which is quite long - 707 strings. But with the help of static analysis we
managed to find "tempNumberTracker" pointer, whose initialization can potentially fail due to several

10. conditions. As a result, if the odds are against the programmer, there will be dereference of a null
pointer.
Stop! Check Assert!
Assert, located in the program indicates that a programmer assumes that some expression is true for a
correctly running program. But can these "successful checks be trusted"?
V547 Expression 'srcIndex - src->left >= 0' is always true. Unsigned type value is always >= 0.
sparsearraysegment.inl 355
class SparseArraySegmentBase
{
public:
static const uint32 MaxLength;
....
uint32 size;
....
}
template<typename T>
SparseArraySegment<T>* SparseArraySegment<T>::CopySegment(....,
uint32 srcIndex, ....)
{
....
AssertMsg(srcIndex - src->left >= 0, // <=
"src->left > srcIndex resulting in
negative indexing of src->elements");
js_memcpy_s(dst->elements + dstIndex - dst->left,
sizeof(T) * inputLen,
src->elements + srcIndex - src->left,
sizeof(T) * inputLen);
return dst;
}

11. Note the comparison "srcIndex-src-> left > = 0". Difference of two unsigned numbers will always be
greater than or equal to zero. Further on this function is used for working with the memory. The result
can be different from the one that the programmer expected.
V547 Expression is always true. Probably the '&&' operator should be used here. bytecodegenerator.cpp
805
void ByteCodeGenerator::AssignRegister(Symbol *sym)
{
AssertMsg(sym->GetDecl() == nullptr ||
sym->GetDecl()->nop != knopConstDecl || // <=
sym->GetDecl()->nop != knopLetDecl, "...."); // <=
if (sym->GetLocation() == Js::Constants::NoRegister)
{
sym->SetLocation(NextVarRegister());
}
}
In this Assert testing of some values is done only partially. If the expression "sym->GetDecl() == nullptr"
is false, then the following conditions are always true. You can check it by building a truth table.
V547 Expression 'callSiteId >= 0' is always true. Unsigned type value is always >= 0. inline.cpp 1181
typedef uint16 ProfileId;
Func * Inline::BuildInlinee(Js::FunctionBody* funcBody, ....)
{
....
Js::ProfileId callSiteId = static_cast<Js::ProfileId>(....);
Assert(callSiteId >= 0);
....
}
In this and couple of other fragments the analyzer detected incorrect comparison of an unsigned
number with null:
 V547 Expression 'callSiteId >= 0' is always true. Unsigned type value is always >= 0. inline.cpp
2627
 V547 Expression 'callSiteId >= 0' is always true. Unsigned type value is always >= 0. inline.cpp
3657
Conclusion
Microsoft has a positive tendency to release their projects under free licenses. For us it is an additional
opportunity to test the analyzer on new projects and also a way to demonstrate usefulness and
effectiveness of static code analysis on the projects of such a large and well known software vendor.
You may be interested to see the full list of all scanned projects that includes other projects from
Microsoft, such as .NET CoreCLR, CoreFX .NET and Microsoft Code Contracts.