I am having a memory problem that cannot explain root cause, please help me!
The problem is as follows:
My program throws exception when i exit.
I investigated and thought that the cause of the error was the use Copymemory function to copy the record containing the variable have string data type.
Below is my demo program by delphi 2009:
In *.dpr file, I added ShareMem unit for use BorlndMM.dll instead of using FastMM memory management.
I define a struct containing a String variable.
Allocate 1 array of 2048 PByte elements.
Use Memory Copy function to copy 2 struct.
finally, Free array 2048.
when i exit program, my program threw exception.
type
TMyStructure = record
F1: TMyStructure;
str1: string;
unit 1
procedure TForm9.FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
var
i: Integer;
begin
F1.str1 := 'This is a string to demo for copying the String data type
using the Copymemory method';
end;
unit 2
procedure TForm8.btn1Click(Sender: TObject);
var
Form9: TForm9;
i: Integer;
s1: array[0..2048-1] of PByte;
begin
// Alloc 1st 2048 segments, each segment gain 1KB
for i := 0 to Length(s1) - 1 do
begin
s1[i] := AllocMem(1024);
end;
// Create Form9
Form9 := TForm9.Create(Owner);
// -> ERROR
CopyMemory(#Self.F1, #Form9.F1, SizeOf(TMyStructure));
// -> OK
// Self.F1 := Form9.F1;
// Free memory s1 array
for i := 0 to Length(s1) - 1 do
begin
FreeMem(s1[i]);
end;
end;
Note:
I have known management in memory of string is reference counting.
I've been investigating because of the use of Memorycopy, so reference count of the string is not incremented although there are 2 references to it.
I investigated that when the string was free for the first time, its reference count dropped to zero, but that memory was not returned to the OS.However, it seems that when another free variable has a nearby address, that memory loses the reference, so when accessing the second free will cause an exception.
Since no source code can be found as well as documentation describing the operation mechanism of BorlndMM.dll should read the spec as well as GetMem.inc source code file to understand the mechanism of operation FastMM and speculate the root cause of the bug. I'm guessing when a free variable, BorlndMM find ahead and after that free space and the combination leads to the memory area that can not be referenced anymore.Of course, using Memorycopy to copy two string variables is a action wrong and must fix. However, I would like to understand how the Memory Management mechanism works to explain the root cause of the above phenomenon.
Expect for help!
If possible please explain the root cause of the above phenomenon for me. And, If there is a document / source explaining how the operation of Memory Management 2005-BorlndMM , please send it to me. Thanks you so much!
The problem with your code is that it bypasses string reference counting. By copying the structure using CopyMemory you end up with two variables, both referring to the same string object. But that object still has a reference count of one.
What happens after that is unpredictable. You may encounter runtime errors. Or you may not. The behaviour is not well defined.
From your question you appear to be trying to understand why different memory managers lead to different behaviours. The thing about undefined behaviour is that it is, well, not defined. There's no point trying to reason about the behaviour. It's not possible to reason about it.
You must fix your code by replacing the memory copy with simple assignment:
F1 := Form9.F1;
Related
Nowhere in the Windows documentation do I see a reference to a size limit to the resources one can add using UpdateResource, but it seems I have stumbled upon one - and it's tiny!
I was developing a Windows Ribbon app and wanted to programmatically build and attach the resource. Linking the resource using a $R directive worked just dandy, but I kept getting memory junk when attaching the very same thing from code.
I have managed to reduce it to a simple example using a string resource:
Handle := BeginUpdateResource(PChar(DestFileName), True);
try
AddResource(Handle, 'STRING', 'ManyXs', StrUtils.DupeString('X', 1000));
finally
EndUpdateResource(Handle, False);
end;
And AddResource is defined as:
procedure TForm2.AddResource(Handle: NativeUInt; ResType, ResName, Value: string);
begin
if not UpdateResource(Handle, PChar(ResType), PChar(ResName), 1033,
PChar(Value), Value.Length * SizeOf(Char)) then
RaiseLastOSError;
end;
Please ignore my hard-coded language for the moment.
When I inspect the resource subsequent to calling this, I see a thousand Xs. Fabulous.
I can change the resource to 1990 Xs and it's fine. The moment it goes to 1991, I get nonsense written to the DLL. The size of the resource is correctly indicated as 3982 (1991 * 2 because it's Unicode), but the contents is just a dump of stuff from memory.
I can view larger resources with my resource editor, and the IDE routinely inserts larger resources (Delphi forms, for example), so I'm definitely missing something.
I've tried the following, despite not thinking any of them would make a difference (they didn't):
Using just large memory buffers instead of strings
Using the Ansi version of the UpdateResource function
Many different resource types - what I really need to get working, is UIFILE
Looking for other functions in the API (I found none)
Combinations of 1, 2 and 3
Any ideas?
Update:
Inspired by the comments and Jolyon's answer, tried a few more things.
First, I tried in Delphi XE7 and XE5 as well (original was in XE6). I don't have XE2 installed anymore, so i cannot confirm what Sertak has said. I'll find out if someone else in my office still has it installed.
Second, here is the memory buffer version:
procedure TForm2.AddResource(Handle: NativeUInt; const ResType, ResName, Value: string);
var
Buffer: Pointer;
BuffLen: Integer;
begin
BuffLen := Value.Length * SizeOf(Char);
GetMem(Buffer, BuffLen);
try
StrPCopy(PChar(Buffer), Value);
if not UpdateResource(Handle, PChar(ResType), PChar(ResName), 1033,
Buffer, BuffLen) then
RaiseLastOSError;
finally
FreeMem(Buffer);
end;
end;
I actually had a previous version of this code where I dumped the contents of that pointer into a file before the call to UpdateResource and the file saved correctly but the resource still saved junk. Then I did this version, which doesn't involve strings at all:
procedure TForm2.AddResource(Handle: NativeUInt; const ResType, ResName: string;
C: AnsiChar; Len: Integer );
var
Buffer: Pointer;
BuffLen: Integer;
begin
BuffLen := Len;
GetMem(Buffer, BuffLen);
try
FillMemory(Buffer, Len, Byte(C));
if not UpdateResource(Handle, PChar(ResType), PChar(ResName), 1033,
Buffer, BuffLen) then
RaiseLastOSError;
finally
FreeMem(Buffer);
end;
end;
With this version I still have the same problem when I use 3882 Xs. Of course, I'm now using single-byte characters, that's why it's double. But I have the exact same issue.
I did notice a difference between the versions in the output of TDUMP though. For versions 1 (strings) and 2 (string copied to buffer), my resource size is suddenly indicated as FFFFFF90 when I use 1991 characters. With version 3 (no strings), the size is the actual hex value of whatever size I used.
The fact that you are getting "junk" data but data of the right size leads me to suspect the PChar() casting of the string value yielding an incorrect address. This normally should not be a problem, but I wonder if the issue is some strange behaviour as the result of passing the result of a function directly into a parameter of a method ? A behaviour which for some strange reason is only triggered when the string involved reaches a certain size, perhaps indicating some edge-case optimization behaviour.
This might also explain difficulties in reproducing the problem if it is some combination of optimization (and/or other compiler settings) in some specific version of Delphi.
I would suggest to try eliminating this possibility by creating your new resource string in an explicit variable and passing that to the AddResource() method. I would also suggest that you be explicit in your parameter semantics and since the string involved is not modified, nor intended to be modified, in the AddResource() method, declare it as a formally const parameter.
You do mention having tried an alternative approach using "memory buffers". If the above suggestions do not resolve the problem, perhaps it would be helpful to post a minimal example that reproduces the problem using those, to eliminate any possible influence on things by the rather more exotic "string" type.
I've got some unexpected access violations for Delphi code that I think is correct, but seems to be miscompiled. I can reduce it to
procedure Run(Proc: TProc);
begin
Proc;
end;
procedure Test;
begin
Run(
procedure
var
S: PChar;
procedure Nested;
begin
Run(
procedure
begin
end);
S := 'Hello, world!';
end;
begin
Run(
procedure
begin
S := 'Hello';
end);
Nested;
ShowMessage(S);
end);
end;
What happens for me is that S := 'Hello, world!' is storing in the wrong location. Because of that, either an access violation is raised, or ShowMessage(S) shows "Hello" (and sometimes, an access violation is raised when freeing the objects used to implement anonymous procedures).
I'm using Delphi XE, all updates installed.
How can I know where this is going to cause problems? I know how to rewrite my code to avoid anonymous procedures, but I have trouble figuring out in precisely which situations they lead to wrong code, so I don't know where to avoid them.
It would be interesting to me to know if this is fixed in later versions of Delphi, but nothing more than interesting, upgrading is not an option at this point.
On QC, the most recent report I can find the similar #91876, but that is resolved in Delphi XE.
Update:
Based on AlexSC's comments, with a slight modification:
...
procedure Nested;
begin
Run(
procedure
begin
S := S;
end);
S := 'Hello, world!';
end;
...
does work.
The generated machine code for
S := 'Hello, world!';
in the failing program is
ScratchForm.pas.44: S := 'Hello, world!';
004BD971 B89CD94B00 mov eax,$004bd99c
004BD976 894524 mov [ebp+$24],eax
whereas the correct version is
ScratchForm.pas.45: S := 'Hello, world!';
004BD981 B8B0D94B00 mov eax,$004bd9b0
004BD986 8B5508 mov edx,[ebp+$08]
004BD989 8B52FC mov edx,[edx-$04]
004BD98C 89420C mov [edx+$0c],eax
The generated code in the failing program is not seeing that S has been moved to a compiler-generated class, [ebp+$24] is how outer local variables of nested methods are accessed how local variables are accessed.
Without seeing the whole Assembler Code for the whole (procedure Test) and only assuming on the Snippet you posted, it's probably that on the failing Snippet only a Pointer has been moved where on the correct version there is some Data moved too.
So it seems that S:=S or S:='' causes the Compiler to create a reference by it's own and could even allocate some Memory, which would explain why it works then.
I also assume that's why a Access Violation occurs without S:=S or S:='', because if there is no Memory allocated for the String (remember you only declared S: PChar) then a Access Violation is raised because non-allocated Memory was accessed.
If you simply declare S: String instead, this probably won't happen.
Additions after extended Commenting:
A PChar is only a Pointer to Data Structure, that must exist. Also another common Issue with PChar is to declare local Variables and then passing a PChar to that Variable to other Procs, because what happens is that the local Variable is freed once the routine ends, but the PChar will still point to it, which then raise Access Violations once accessed.
The only possibility that exists per Documentation is declaring something like that const S: PChar = 'Hello, world!' this works because the Compiler can resolve a relative Adresse to it. But this only works for Constants and not for Variables like on the Example above. Doing it like in the Example above needs Storage to be allocated for the string literal to which the PChar then points to like S:String; P:PChar; S:='Hello, world!'; P:=PChar(S); or similar.
If it still fails with declaring String or Integer then perhaps the Variable disappears somewhere along or suddenly isn't visible anymore in a proc, but that would be another Issue that has nothing to do with the existing PChar Issue explained already.
Final Conclusion:
It's possible to do S:PChar; S:='Hello, world!' but the Compiler then simply allocates it as a local or global Constant like const S: PChar = 'Hello, world!' does which is saved into Executable, a second S := 'Hello' then creates another one which is also saved into Executable and so on - but S then only points to the last one allocated, all others are still in the Executable but not accessible any more without knowing the exact Location, because S only points to the last one allocated.
So depending which one was the last S points either to Hello, world! or Hello. On the Example above i can only guess which one was the last and who knows perhaps the Compiler can only guess too and depending on optimizations and other unpredictable Factors S could suddenly point to unallocated Mem instead of the last one by the Time Showmessage(S) is executed which then raises a Access Violation.
How can I know where this is going to cause problems?
It's hard to tell at this point in time.
If we knew the nature of the fix in Delphi XE2 we'd be in a better position.
All you can do is refrain from using anonymous functions.
Delphi has had procedural variables, so the need for anonymous functions ready is not that dire.
See http://www.deltics.co.nz/blog/posts/48.
It would be interesting to me to know if this is fixed in later versions of Delphi
According to #Sertac Akyuz this has been fixed in XE2.
Personally I dislike anonymous methods and have had to ban people from using them in my Java projects because a sizable proportion of our code base was going anonymous (event handlers).
Used in extreme moderation I can see the use case.
But in Delphi where we have procedural variables and nested procedures... Not so much.
Let's start with this simple Delphi 2010 snippet:
var
StringList: TStringList;
begin
ReportMemoryLeaksOnShutdown := True;
StringList := TStringList.Create;
StringList.LoadFromFile('c:\fateh.txt');
RegisterExpectedMemoryLeak(StringList);
FastMM4 report the memory leak again and again even with Addr(StringList) as parameter
so how to Register Expected MemoryLeak and why the methods sitting above doesn't work
thank's in advance.
You only registered the leak of the string list object. You also need to register that you are leaking all the objects owned by the string list. In this case it owns StringList.Count instances of string objects. The memory manager does not know that those strings are owned by the string list object and so will also be leaked.
And that's much easier said than done. Because you need to find the start of the memory block that represents a string. That's at a fixed offset from the string's first character, and the offset depends on which Delphi version you use.
In Unicode Delphi, in 32 bit code, the offset is 12 bytes. So the following will register the leaked strings:
for i := 0 to StringList.Count-1 do
if StringList[i]<>'' then
RegisterExpectedMemoryLeak(PByte(StringList[i])-12);
Even when you do that you'll still get two reported memory leaks. At least one of those is explained by the dynamic array that is owned by the string list, TStringList.FList. If you wanted to register that leak, then you'll need to do some more hacking because again you'll have to rely on implementation details as to where that array is stored.
I'm using DUnit and FastMM to catch unfinalized memory blocks but there seems to be a Bug. I dunno if its in FastMM, DUnit or in Delphi itself, but here goes:
When my Test Case has internal strings, the test fails with memory leaks. If I run the same test again without closing the DUnit GUI, the test passes OK. The same occours with DUnit GUI Testing, I believe for the same reason. There are no Leaks in my app, the proof is that FastMM doesn't generate the leak report in those cases.
Question 1: Is there a way to ignore them without setting the AllowedMemoryLeakSize
Question 2: I'm using Delphi 7, any news if this fix in Delphi XE?
My actual test configuration:
test.FailsOnNoChecksExecuted := True;
test.FailsOnMemoryLeak := True;
test.FailsOnMemoryRecovery := False;
test.IgnoreSetUpTearDownLeaks := True;
Here's a sample code (implementation only)
procedure TTest.Setup;
begin
A := 'test';
end;
procedure TTest.TearDown;
begin
// nothing here :)
end;
procedure TTest.Test;
begin
CheckTrue(True);
end;
Thanks!!!!
UPDATE: The problem i'm facing is documented in http://members.optusnet.com.au/mcnabp/Projects/HIDUnit/HIDUnit.html#memoryleakdetection
But the same link doesn't present a solution other than running the same test again.
Actually, strictly speaking your test is leaking memory on the first run.
It's not a bug in FastMM, DUnit or in Delphi, the bug is in your test.
Let's start by clearing up misconceptions, and explaining some inner workings:
Misconception: FastMM proves there are no leaks in my app
The problem here is that FastMM can give you a false sense of security if it doesn't detect leaks. The reason is that any kind of leak detection has to look for leaks from checkpoints. Provided all allocations done after the Start checkpoint are recovered by the End checkpoint - everything's cool.
So if you create a global object Bin, and send all objects to the Bin without destroying them, you do have a memory leak. Keep running like and your application will run out of memory. However, if the Bin destroys all its objects before the FastMM End checkpoint, FastMM won't notice anything untoward.
What's happening in your test is FastMM has a wider range on its checkpoints than DUnit leak detection. Your test leaks memory, but that memory is later recovered by the time FastMM does its checks.
Each DUnit test gets its own instance for multiple runs
DUnit creates a separate instance of your test class for each test case. However, these instances are reused for each run of the test. The simplified sequence of events is as follows:
Start checkpoint
Call SetUp
Call the test method
Call TearDown
End checkpoint
So if you have a leak between those 3 methods - even if the leak is only to the instance, and will be recovered as soon as the object is destroyed - the leak will be reported. In your case, the leak is recovered when the object is destroyed. So if DUnit had instead created & destroyed the test class for each run, no leak would be reported.
NOTE This is by design, so you can't really call it a bug.
Basically DUnit is being very strict about the principle that your test must be 100% self contained. From SetUp to TearDown, any memory you allocate (directly/indirectly) must be recovered.
Constant strings are copied whenever they are assigned to a variable
Whenever you code StringVar := 'SomeLiteralString' or StringVar := SomeConstString or StringVar := SomeResourceString the value of the constant is copied (yes, copied - not reference counted)
Again, this is by design. The intention is that if the string was retrieved from a library, you don't that string to be trashed if the library is unloaded. So it's not really a bug, just an "inconvenient" design.
So the reason your test code leaks memory on the first run is that A := 'test' is allocating memory for a copy of "test". On the subsequent runs, another copy of "test" is made, and the previous copy is destroyed - but the net memory allocation is the same.
Solution
The solution in this particular case is trivial.
procedure TTest.TearDown;
begin
A := ''; //Remove the last reference to the copy of "test" and presto leak is gone :)
end;
And in general, you shouldn't have to do much more than that. If your test creates child objects that reference copies of constant strings, those copies will be destroyed when the child objects are destroyed.
However, if any of your tests pass references to strings to any global objects / singletons (naughty, naughty, you know you shouldn't be doing that), then you'll have leaked a reference and hence some memory - even if it is recovered later.
Some further observations
Going back to the discussion about how DUnit runs tests. It is possible for separate runs of the same test to interfere with each other. E.g.
procedure TTestLeaks.SetUp;
begin
FSwitch := not FSwitch;
if FSwitch then Fail('This test fails every second run.');
end;
Expanding on the idea, you can get your test to "leak" memory on the first and every second(even) run.
procedure TTestLeaks.SetUp;
begin
FSwitch := not FSwitch;
case FSwitch of
True : FString := 'Short';
False : FString := 'This is a long string';
end;
end;
procedure TTestLeaks.TearDown;
begin
// nothing here :( <-- note the **correct** form for the smiley
end;
This doesn't really result in overall consumption of memory increasing because each alternate run recovers the same amount of memory that is leaked on every second run.
The string copying results in some interesting (and perhaps unexpected) behaviour.
var
S1, S2: string;
begin
S1 := 'Some very very long string literal';
S2 := S1; { A pointer copy and increased ref count }
if (S1 = S2) then { Very quick comparison because both vars point to the same address, therefore they're obviously equal. }
end;
However....
const
CLongStr = 'Some very very long string literal';
var
S1, S2: string;
begin
S1 := CLongStr;
S2 := CLongStr; { A second **copy** of the same constant is allocated }
if (S1 = S2) then { A full comparison has to be done because there is no shortcut to guarantee they're the same. }
end;
This does suggest an interesting, though extreme and probably ill-advised workaround just due to the sheer absurdness of the approach:
const
CLongStr = 'Some very very long string literal';
var
GlobalLongStr: string;
initialization
GlobalLongStr := CLongStr; { Creates a copy that is safely on the heap so it will be allowed to be reference counted }
//Elsewhere in a test
procedure TTest.SetUp;
begin
FString1 := GlobalLongStr; { A pointer copy and increased ref count }
FString2 := GlobalLongStr; { A pointer copy and increased ref count }
if (FString1 = FString2) then { Very efficient compare }
end;
procedure TTest.TearDown;
begin
{... and no memory leak even though we aren't clearing the strings. }
end;
Finally / Conclusion
Yes, apparently this lengthy post is going to end.
Thank you very much for asking the question.
It gave me a clue as to a related problem I remember experiencing a while back. After I've had a chance to confirm my theory, I'll post a Q & A; as others might also find it useful.
I would try the current release from Subversion first (but this version does not work with Delphi 7, only 2007 and newer):
In the commit log, one version has a comment about a fix in the area
Revision 40 Modified Fri Apr 15 23:21:27 2011 UTC (14 months ago)
move JclStartExcetionTracking and JclStopExceptionTracking out of
DUnit recursion to prevent invalid memory leak reporting
I found a way to lessen the problem: instead of working with Strings, I used ShortStrings and WideStrings in the Test Classes. No leaks poped from them.
It's not the solution, which by the way seems to be solved in the newest Delphi versions.
Bottom line is that the detected leak may be irrelevant to the test case being executed but it is a legitimate leak at the time it is detected. The memory for the string was unallocated prior to entry into the SetUp procedure and it is not deallocated prior to exiting from the TearDown procedure. So it is a memory leak until either the string variable is reassigned or the test case is destroyed.
For strings and dynamic arrays you can use SetLength(<VarName>, 0) in the TearDown procedure.
Consider the following scenario:
type
PStructureForSomeCDLL = ^TStructureForSomeCDLL;
TStructureForSomeCDLL = record
pName: PAnsiChar;
end
function FillStructureForDLL: PStructureForSomeDLL;
begin
New(Result);
// Result.pName := PAnsiChar(SomeObject.SomeString); // Old D7 code working all right
Result.pName := Utf8ToAnsi(UTF8Encode(SomeObject.SomeString)); // New problematic unicode version
end;
...code to pass FillStructureForDLL to DLL...
The problem in unicode version is that the string conversion involved now returns a new string on stack and that's reclaimed at the end of the FillStructureForDLL call, leaving the DLL with corrupted data. In old D7 code, there were no intermediate conversion funcs and thus no problem.
My current solution is a converter function like below, which is IMO too much of an hack. Is there a more elegant way of achieving the same result?
var gKeepStrings: array of AnsiString;
{ Convert the given Unicode value S to ANSI and increase the ref. count
of it so that returned pointer stays valid }
function ConvertToPAnsiChar(const S: string): PAnsiChar;
var temp: AnsiString;
begin
SetLength(gKeepStrings, Length(gKeepStrings) + 1);
temp := Utf8ToAnsi(UTF8Encode(S));
gKeepStrings[High(gKeepStrings)] := temp; // keeps the resulting pointer valid
// by incresing the ref. count of temp.
Result := PAnsiChar(temp);
end;
One way might be to tackle the problem before it becomes a problem, by which I mean adapt the class of SomeObject to maintain an ANSI Encoded version of SomeString (ANSISomeString?) for you alongside the original SomeString, keeping the two in step in a "setter" for the SomeString property (using the same UTF8 > ANSI conversion you are already doing).
In non-Unicode versions of the compiler make ANSISomeString be simply a "copy" of SomeString string, which will of course not be a copy, merely an additional ref count on SomeString. In the Unicode version it references a separate ANSI encoding with the same "lifetime" as the original SomeString.
procedure TSomeObjectClass.SetSomeString(const aValue: String);
begin
fSomeString := aValue;
{$ifdef UNICODE}
fANSISomeString := Utf8ToAnsi(UTF8Encode(aValue));
{$else}
fANSISomeString := fSomeString;
{$endif}
end;
In your FillStructure... function, simply change your code to refer to the ANSISomeString property - this then is entirely independent of whether compiling for Unicode or not.
function FillStructureForDLL: PStructureForSomeDLL;
begin
New(Result);
result.pName := PANSIChar(SomeObject.ANSISomeString);
end;
There are at least three ways to do this.
You could change SomeObject's class
definition to use an AnsiString
instead of a string.
You could
use a conversion system to hold
references, like in your example.
You could initialize result.pname
with GetMem and copy the result of the
conversion to result.pname^ with
Move. Just remember to FreeMem it
when you're done.
Unfortunately, none of them is a perfect solution. So take a look at the options and decide which one works best for you.
Hopefully you already have code in your application to properly dispose off of all the dynamically allocated records that you New() in FillStructureForDLL(). I consider this code highly dubious, but let's assume this is reduced code to demonstrate the problem only. Anyway, the DLL you pass the record instance to does not care how big the chunk of memory is, it will only get a pointer to it anyway. So you are free to increase the size of the record to make place for the Pascal string that is now a temporary instance on the stack in the Unicode version:
type
PStructureForSomeCDLL = ^TStructureForSomeCDLL;
TStructureForSomeCDLL = record
pName: PAnsiChar;
// ... other parts of the record
pNameBuffer: string;
end;
And the function:
function FillStructureForDLL: PStructureForSomeDLL;
begin
New(Result);
// there may be a bug here, can't test on the Mac... idea should be clear
Result.pNameBuffer := Utf8ToAnsi(UTF8Encode(SomeObject.SomeString));
Result.pName := Result.pNameBuffer;
end;
BTW: You wouldn't even have that problem if the record passed to the DLL was a stack variable in the procedure or function that calls the DLL function. In that case the temporary string buffers will only be necessary in the Unicode version if more than one PAnsiChar has to be passed (the conversion calls would otherwise reuse the temporary string). Consider changing the code accordingly.
Edit:
You write in a comment:
This would be best solution if modifying the DLL structures were an option.
Are you sure you can't use this solution? The point is that from the POV of the DLL the structure isn't modified at all. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but the DLL will not care whether a structure passed to it is exactly what it is declared to be. It will be passed a pointer to the structure, and this pointer needs to point to a block of memory that is at least as large as the structure, and needs to have the same memory layout. However, it can be a block of memory that is larger than the original structure, and contain additional data.
This is actually used in quite a lot of places in the Windows API. Did you ever wonder why there are structures in the Windows API that contain as the first thing an ordinal value giving the size of the structure? It's the key to API evolution while preserving backwards compatibility. Whenever new information is needed for the API function to work it is simply appended to the existing structure, and a new version of the structure is declared. Note that the memory layout of older versions of the structure is preserved. Old clients of the DLL can still call the new function, which will use the size member of the structure to determine which API version is called.
In your case no different versions of the structure exist as far as the DLL is concerned. However, you are free to declare it larger for your application than it really is, provided the memory layout of the real structure is preserved, and additional data is only appended. The only case where this wouldn't work is when the last part of the structure were a record with varying size, kind of like the Windows BITMAP structure - a fixed header and dynamic data. However, your record looks like it has a fixed length.
Wouldn't PChar(AnsiString(SomeObject.SomeString)) work?