rspec/rules/S3491/cfamily/rule.adoc

== Why is this an issue?

By contract, chaining the 'Address of' operator ``++&++`` with the 'Indirection' operator ``++*++`` results in a return to the initial value. Thus, such combinations are confusing at best, and bugs at worst.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,cpp]
----
int *ptr = ...;
int *result1 = &(*ptr); //Noncompliant
int *result2 = &*ptr; //Noncompliant

int value = 4;
int result3 = *(&value); //Noncompliant
int result4 = *&value; //Noncompliant
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,cpp]
----
int *ptr = ...;
int *result1 = ptr;
int *result2 = ptr;

int value = 4;
int result3 = value;
int result4 = value;
----


=== Exceptions

No issue is raised when the ``++*++`` or ``++&++`` operators are overloaded or when both operators are not located in the same piece of code (one being generated by a macro expansion and the other one located in the main source code for instance).


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

=== Message

Remove this useless sequence of pointer operators: "xxx".


=== Highlighting

The sequence of pointer operators


'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

=== relates to: S2761

=== on 19 Jan 2016, 11:08:48 Alban Auzeill wrote:
About the Labels: "bug"

I can't find one case where it can be a bug. In my view, it's more: brain-overload and perhaps performance


About "SQALE Characteristic": Reliability - Logic related reliability

In my view it's more: understandability or readability

endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]