In a Delphi 7 project we installed FastMM. Soon after that we noticed one of the forms started to issue Abstract Error message on close. I have debugged this extensively and I can't find the reason so far. The usual reason for this error message doesn't seem to apply here. The application doesn't define abstract classes. I also searched the form for a possible use of TStrings or something like that. Most importantly, we didn't (well, we think we didn't) make any changes to this form. It just broke.
Are there some other possible causes for this error besides trying to call unimplemented method?
Is there some possibilty that FastMM has enabled some obscure bug in the application, that remained hidden until now?
If the answer to these questions is no, then I'll just continue to search for an unimplemented method call, relieved that I am not missing something else.
If there is memory corruption then all sort of errors can be raised and it is very difficult to find the cause.
To answer your questions: 1) Yes abstract error can also be caused by memory corruption, and 2) Yes enabling FastMM can make bugs visible that normally pass unnoticed (but should still be fixed).
Some general advice for finding memory errors:
Try "FullDebugMode" setting in FastMM.
Make sure everything you Create is matched with a Free.
Make sure nothing is freed more than once.
Make sure an object is not used after it has been freed (or before it has been created).
Turn on hints and warnings (and fix them when they occur).
"It just broke" - it was probably always broke but now you know.
I have seen problems when closing a form as part of a button event. The form gets destroyed and then the remainder of the button messages get dispatched to a no-longer existing button. The Release method avoids this by (from memory) posting a wm_close message back to the form
Answer to question 1 "Are there some other possible causes for this error besides trying to call unimplemented method?"
Yes. This is what caused in my case an Abstract Error:
TWinControl(Sender).Visible:= FALSE;
This worked when sender was a TButton but raised the error (of course) when the sender was something else (like TAction). It was obviously my fault. I should have used "as" instead of a hard typecast.
Answer to question 2: Yes. I have seen that happening too. We should be very clear that this doesn't mean that FastMM is buggy. The bug was 'dormant'. FastMM only triggered it.
Actually you should rely on FastMM even more to find your issue. Switch FastMM to full debug mode for this. It will help you with:
Make sure an object is not used after it has been freed (or before it
has been created)
Also, in a few cases, the whole project was screwed up and I got the Abstract error. Nothing worked until I deleted the DPROJ file. Just do a compare between your current DPROJ file and the one in your back and you will see how the IDE f**** up the file.
You MUST also fix ALL warnings the compiler shows! The compiler is serious about that. It wouldn't raise an warning without a valid reason. Fix that and you will probably fix your problem.
In this particular case I would also replace all .Free with FreeAndNil().
You could try to add u_dzAbstractHandler to your project. It should raise the abstract error where the method was called, so it is easier to debug it. Of course this only helps when the error occurs when running in the debugger.
https://osdn.net/projects/dzlib-tools/scm/svn/blobs/head/dzlib/trunk/src/u_dzAbstractHandler.pas
Could be that one of your abstract functions/procedures in the base class is not implemented;
try this :
e.g
type
TBaseClass = class (TObject)
public
procedure DoSomething; virtual; abstract; //not implemented procedure
end;
type
TInheritedClass = class (TBaseClass)
public
procedure DoSomething; override;
end;
//Implementation
procedure TInheritedClass.DoSomething;
begin
//your code
end;
Related
I wrote a set of components that link to each other via published interface properties. They are registered and installed in a design package.
Using published interface properties is not that common in Delphi, and thus, unsurprisingly, doesn't seem to work that well.
It works fine when components reside on the same form, however interface property links between components on different forms cause issues.
Unlike object links to components on another form, interface links don't seem to be recognized by IDE. What I mean is best described by an example, when you have 2 forms open in IDE, and have links between components on them, then trying to switch to form view as text (Alt+F12) would cause IDE to correctly complain that:
Module 'UnitXXX.pas' has open descendents or linked modules. Cannot close.
But if the property is an interface then this does not happen, what happens instead is that the link is severed (and that's the best case scenario when you use Notification mechanism to clear references, otherwise you're left with an invalid pointer)
Another problem, likely as a consequence of the same bug is that when you open a project in IDE, the order in which forms will be reopened is undefined, so IDE can try to open a form that contains components that have interface links to components on another form, but that other form is not recreated yet. So this effectively results in either AV or severed links.
Back in 90s while I used Datasets and Datasources I remember similar issues with links between forms disappearing, so this is somewhat similar.
As a temp workaround I added duplicate published properties, for each Interface property I added another that is declared as TComponent. This makes Delphi aware there is a link between forms, but is an ugly workaround to say the least.
So I wonder if there is something I can do to fix this issue ? It's an IDE bug and likely not fixable directly, but perhaps I can override something or otherwise hook in to streaming mechanism to more effectively workaround this bug.
I haven't ever gone so deep into streaming mechanism, but I suspect the Fixup mechanism is supposed to deal with this. There is a csFixups TComponentState so I hope a workaround is possible.
Edit: Using D2007.
Update:
New updated reproducible example uploaded to http://www.filedropper.com/fixupbugproject2
Added property ComponentReference: TComponent so that it's easy to compare and trace interface vs component streaming.
I narrowed the problem down to assembler level which is a bit out of my depth.
In procedure GlobalFixupReferences in classes unit it calls:
(GetOrdProp(FInstance, FPropInfo) <> 0)
which eventually executes:
function TInterfacedComponent.GetInterfaceReference: IInterface;
begin
// uncomment the code bellow to avoid exception
{ if (csLoading in ComponentState) and (FInterfaceReference = nil) then
// leave result unassigned to avoid exception
else
}
result := FInterfaceReference; // <----- Exception happens here
end;
As you can see from the comment, the only way I found to avoid the exception is to leave the result unassigned, but that breaks the functionality since comparison above in GlobalFixupReferences fails due to GetOrdProp <> 0, which severes the link.
tracing deeper the more exact location of exception is in
procedure _IntfCopy(var Dest: IInterface; const Source: IInterface); in system unit
This line in particular raises an read of address 0x80000000
{ Now we're into the less common cases. }
##NilSource:
MOV ECX, [EAX] // get current value
So, why MOV fails and what's wrong with ECX or EAX I have no idea.
To summarize, the problem happens only with published interface properties that have a getter method, and the property points to component on another form/module (and that form/module is not recreated yet). In such case restoring form DFM causes an AV.
I'm pretty sure the bug is in the ASM code in GetOrdProp, but it's beyond my ability to fix, so the
easiest workaround is to use a Field instead of a getter method and read it directly in the property. This is, fortunately good enough for my case currently.
Alternatively, you can declare the property as TComponent instead of interface, then write a TComponentProperty descendant, override ComponentMayBeSetTo to filter component that don't support the required interface. And of course register it using RegisterPropertyEditor
I'm asking this because I'm out of good ideas...hoping for someone else's fresh perspective.
I have a user running our 32-bit Delphi application (compiled with BDS 2006) on a Windows 7 64-bit system. Our software was "working fine" until a couple weeks ago. Now suddenly it isn't: it throws an Access Violation while initializing (instancing objects).
We've had him reinstall all our software--starting all over from scratch. Same AV error. We disabled his anti-virus software; same error.
Our stack tracing code (madExcept) for some reason wasn't able to provide a stack trace to the line of the error, so we've sent a couple error logging versions for the user to install and run, to isolate the line which generates the error...
Turns out, it's a line which instances a simple TStringList descendant (there's no overridden Create constructor, etc.--basically the Create is just instancing a TStringList which has a few custom methods associated with the descendant class.)
I'm tempted to send the user yet another test .EXE; one which just instances a plain-vanilla TStringList, to see what happens. But at this point I feel like I'm flailing at windmills, and risk wearing out the user's patience if I send too many more "things to try".
Any fresh ideas on a better approach to debugging this user's problem? (I don't like bailing out on a user's problems...those tend to be the ones which, if ignored, suddenly become an epidemic that 5 other users suddenly "find".)
EDIT, as Lasse requested:
procedure T_fmMain.AfterConstruction;
begin
inherited;
//Logging shows that we return from the Inherited call above,
//then AV in the following line...
FActionList := TAActionList.Create;
...other code here...
end;
And here's the definition of the object being created...
type
TAActionList = class(TStringList)
private
FShadowList: TStringList; //UPPERCASE shadow list
FIsDataLoaded : boolean;
public
procedure AfterConstruction; override;
procedure BeforeDestruction; override;
procedure DataLoaded;
function Add(const S: string): Integer; override;
procedure Delete(Index : integer); override;
function IndexOf(const S : string) : Integer; override;
end;
implementation
procedure TAActionList.AfterConstruction;
begin
Sorted := False; //until we're done loading
FShadowList := TStringList.Create;
end;
I hate these kind of problems, but I reckon you should focus on what's happening recently BEFORE the object tries to get constructed.
The symptoms you describe sound like typical heap corruption, so maybe you have something like...
An array being written to outside bounds? (turn bounds checking on, if you have it off)
Code trying to access an object which has been deleted?
Since my answer above, you've posted code snippets. This does raise a couple of possible issues that I can see.
a: AfterConstruction vs. modified constructor:
As others have mentioned, using AfterConstruction in this way is at best not idiomatic. I don't think it's truly "wrong", but it's a possible smell. There's a good intro to these methods on Dr. Bob's site here.
b: overridden methods Add, Delete, IndexOf
I'm guessing these methods use the FshadowList item in some way. Is it remotely possible that these methods are being invoked (and thus using FShadowList) before the FShadowList is created? This seems possible because you're using the AfterConstruction methods above, by which time virtual methods should 'work'. Hopefully this is easy to check with a debugger by setting some breakpoints and seeing the order they get hit in.
You should never override AfterConstruction and BeforeDestruction methods in your programs. They are not meant for what you're doing with them, but for low-level VCL hacking (like reference adding, custom memory handling or such).
You should override the Create constructor and Destroy destructor instead and put your initialization code here, like such:
constructor TAActionList.Create;
begin
inherited;
// Sorted := False; // not necessary IMHO
FShadowList := TStringList.Create;
end;
Take a look at the VCL code, and all serious published Delphi code, and you'll see that AfterConstruction and BeforeDestruction methods are never used. I guess this is the root cause of your problem, and your code must be modified in consequence. It could be even worse in future version of Delphi.
Clearly there is nothing suspicious about what TAActionList is doing at time of construction. Even considering ancestor constructors and possible side-effects of setting Sorted := False indicate there shouldn't be a problem. I'm more interested in what's happening inside T_fmMain.
Basically something is happening that causes FActionList := TAActionList.Create; to fail, even though there is nothing wrong in the implementation of TAActionList.Create (a possibility is that the form may have been unexpectedly destroyed).
I suggest you try changing T_fmMain.AfterConstruction as follows:
procedure T_fmMain.AfterConstruction;
begin
//This is safe because the object created has no form dependencies
//that might otherwise need to be initialised first.
FActionList := TAActionList.Create;
//Now, if the ancestor's AfterConstruction is causing the problem,
//the above line will work fine, and...
inherited AfterConstruction;
//... your error will have shifted to one of these lines here.
//other code here
end;
If an environment issue with a component used by your form is causing it destroy the form during AfterConstruction, then it's the assignment of the new TAActionList.Create instance to FActionList that's actually causing the AV. Another way to test would be to first create the object to a local variable, then assign it to the class field: FActionList := LActionList.
Environment problems can be subtle. E.g. We use a reporting component which we discovered requires that a printer driver is installed, otherwise it prevents our application from starting up.
You can confirm the destruction theory by setting a global variable in the form's destructor. Also you may be able to output a stack trace from the destructor to confirm the exact sequence leading to the destruction of the form.
Our software was "working fine" until a couple weeks ago... suddenly become an epidemic that 5 other users suddenly "find".) :
Sounds like you need to do some forensic analysis, not debugging: You need to discover what changed in that user's environment to trigger the error. All the more so if you have other users with the same deployment that don't have the problem (sounds like that's your situation). Sending a user 'things to try' is one of the best ways to erode user confidence very quickly! (If there is IT support at the user site, get them involved, not the user).
For starters, explore these options:
*) If possible, I'd check the Windows Event Log for events that may have occurred on that machine around the time the problem arose.
*) Is there some kind of IT support person on the user's side that you can talk to about possible changes/problems in that user's environment?
*) Was there some kind of support issue/incident with that user around the time the error surfaced that may be connected to it, and/or caused some kind of data or file corruption particular to them?
(As for the code itself, I agree with #Warran P about decoupling etc)
Things to do when MadExcept is NOT Enough (which is rare, I must say):
Try Jedi JCL's JCLDEBUG instead. You might get a stack traceback with it, if you change out MadExcept for JCLDEBUG, and write directly the stack trace to the disk without ANY UI interaction.
Run a debug-viewer like MS/SysInternals debugview, and trace output things like the Self pointers of the objects where the problems are happening. I suspect that somehow an INVALID instance pointer is ending up in there.
Decouple things and refactor things, and write unit tests, until you find the really ugly thing that's trashing you. (Someone suggested heap corruption. I often find heap corruption goes hand in hand with unsafe ugly untested code, and deeply bound UI+model cascading failures.)
I wasn't entirely sure how to name this, so apologies in advance.
You see, I'm trying to teach myself Win32/DirectX programming, utilizing Delphi (my language of choice) using this site - http://rastertek.com/tutindex.html
Of course, the site being all in C++, I have to port it to Delphi. It seemed simple enough, at first. I'm on the second tutorial for DirectX 11 - setting up the framework and getting the initial window to show up.
Now for my actual problem. I was getting Access Violation errors. So I found and started to use MadExcept to try and find out what was going on. So it tells me the lines, but I'm clueless as to how to solve the issues at hand.
I have everything set up to mimic as well as I can the original source code. The only real difference being that in the instances where a pointer to a class for a variable, such as the case with m_input, m_grahics, and system, I made a type for those. So I have the TSystemClass, TInputClass, TGraphicsClass, and then I have PSystemClass, etc. that = ^TSystemClass, etc. I figured that this would make things a bit simpler and more neater. On a side note, I assume it should be said, but I for the construction of the copy constructors made the initial classes inherit from TPersistent so I could use it's Assign procedure.
So, back to the Access Violation errors. So first, the problem was in the main program with system being of type PSystemClass. So for a reason unknown to me, when I tried to use system.create, it was at that very instant, creating the access violation. I then realized however that I wasn't assigning system the system.create. So I tried this, and it said that, and rightfully so I suppose, at compile time an error that the two were incompatible since system.create is of type TSystemClass, and system is of PSystemClass. So I tried typecasting it, and that worked. but once again, still getting the dreaded access violations.
So then I had an odd idea, maybe I should call the regular constructor right from the TSystemClass itself. And I tried, needed to typecast again. So I did. And it worked! No longer an access violation error there! Now... New problem! Or rather in this case "problems". There's 3 things now listed in the call stack in MadExcept. The first one:
m_hinstance := GetModuleHandle(nil);
It's saying that this is causing an access violation error. Though why is this, exactly? From what I understand and have read, if GetModuleHandle is set to null/nil, it should retrieve the handle for the file that called it, right? And from what the documentation says, that should be executable.
However note: I'm not sure if the fact that I have the main program, the systemclass stuff, the inputclass stuff, and the graphicsclass stuff, all in different program/unit files to mimic the nature of the original source code. So is this possibly what's causing it? And if so how would I fix it? By putting all of the code from the unit files into the main program file? Though that, in my own personal opinion, would be quite messy and unintuitive.
The next one baffles me even more.
InitializeWindows(ScreenWidth, ScreenHeight);
I'm not dealing with anything other then a function to register the window class and set things up for the window and all here. So I'm not quite sure what the problem here is since it only deals with 2 parameters and they're defined and all already before it's called. So I'm not quite sure what the problem here is at all and what exactly is causing the access violation.
and then finally the final one is in the main program:
return := system.initialize;
Return is what I used in all instances of the result variable of the original source code, as result is of course a built in variable of all functions.
I suppose if system is never able to properly do what it's meant to do then something could/should happen here. Likewise, because I used TSystemClass.Create (typecasted to PSystemClass) earlier to create system would that do anything here? And is it possibly linked to the other two because they're not able to do their own thing properly?
And on a final note; there is one last thing actually on the call stack in MadExcept.
It says Kernel32.dll in the module section, but aside from the main thread, it lists nothing else. (If this information is needed I'll gladly put it up).
Thanks in advance to anyone who's read this far and I hope to find some help on this problem so I may further my studies.
You're instantiating your classes all wrong. Here's an example from TSystemClass.Initialize:
m_Input := PInputClass(m_Input.create);
That's a variable you declared as a PInputClass.
Earlier, in TSystemClass.Create, you initialized that variable:
m_Input := nil;
So, since you have a null reference, it should be clear that you can't call any methods on it. In particular, you cannot call Create on it. Instead, call Create on the class you want to instantiate: TInputClass.Create.
That constructor returns a value of the type you constructed, a TInputClass. It doesn't return a PInputClass, so your type-cast is wrong. As Cosmin's comment explains, Delphi object variables are already pointers. It's exceedingly rare to have to declare a pointer type based on Delphi classes. The correct code is this:
m_Input := TInputClass.Create;
After that line, you check whether m_Input is null. You never have to do that in Delphi; a constructor either returns a valid object, or it doesn't return at all. If there's a problem constructing an object, the constructor throws an exception and the assignment statement never executes. (The original C++ code does it wrong, too. The new operator hasn't returned a null pointer on failure for over a decade, long before anyone was in a position to start writing a DirectX 11 tutorial.)
You should first of all try to get rid of the TPersistent inheritance. If you want to pass an object to a library its interface should be exactly the same as the original that is used in C++. By inheriting from TPersistent you take a whole lot of load into your class that might be not needed or might even be the reason of your problems.
Additionally it would help if you posted the exact output of the exceptions. Or even the CallStack. That might help tracing down the error.
I am looking for hints on how to debugging a crash in an application that uses the MS XML wrappers in the Delphi VCL. I suspect memory corruption, or some kind of obscure evil thing happening between objects and interfaces, such as reference counting bugs, or heap corruption. The question is, in effect: how do I debug such a crash?
This particular code makes heavy internal use of and extends on the base XmlIntf Interfaces (IXMLNode). ISomethingCustom is an interface that extends IXMLNode. THe problem happens where we crash somewhere in a recursive function that is passed an ISomethingCustom which is also (or supports also, in interface terms) IXMLNode.
boolean UtilityFunction( aNode: ISomethingCustom ):Boolean;
begin
if not Assigned(aNode) then exit; // this works. great.
if not Assigned(aNode.ParentNode) then exit; // this DOES NOT WORK.
// code that blows up if aNode.ParentNode is not assigned.
end;
The situation is that the aNode is also IXMLNode, and IXMLNode.ParentNode value is assigned (not nil), and yet it points to a COM object that may have been freed, destroyed, or corrupted somehow. I am trying to figure out WHAT is going on when an interface pointer can appear to be valid, but the object behind it has been nuked somehow.
Checking Assigned(aNode.ParentNode) returns TRUE, even when, if you were to attempt a cast in the debugger (at runtime only, not in the code), like this:
inspect/evaluate aNode
inspect/evaluate TInterfacedObject(aNode).ClassName
(works in Delphi 2010, at least!)
now cast TWhateverClassNameYouGotBefore(aNode).
In the debugger I now see that this is NIL. WHich may mean that
the magic "casting interface back to
the object" feature that is new in
delphi 2010, is failing.
I believe I am trying to debug a problem where heaps are corrupted, or COM objects are corrupt on the heap, because of a reference counting problem.
I really think that nobody should ever have the situation arise where an interface appears valid, but the object underneath has been deleted. I really would like to know what to do, and what is going on.
Although you haven't shown it in your code, your comments seem to indicate that you're type-casting the interface variable to a class type. That's not allowed. I've described why:
Why can’t I cast an interface reference to an object reference?
Interface references and object references don't point to the same things. Therefore, calling a method on one when the compiler thinks you have the other will yield unexpected results. You were unlucky because the code continued to run instead of crashing with an access violation, which would have been a bigger indication that you were doing something wrong.
My article above concludes by suggesting you use the JclSysUtils.GetImplementorOfInterface function from the JCL if you have a Delphi-implemented interface and the interface offers no function of its own for revealling the underlying object.
Wild guess: Have you tried to put aNode.ParentNode in a local variable and use it in the rest of the Utilityfunction:
function UtilityFunction(aNode: ISomethingCustom): Boolean;
var
lParentNode: INode;
begin
if not Assigned(aNode) then exit; // this works. great.
lParentNode := aNode.ParentNode;
if not Assigned(lParentNode) then exit;
// code that uses lParentNode.
end;
My suggestion is to make sure that the ParentNode function is actually called in Assigned(aNode.ParentNode). There are some nasty corner-cases in Delphi where a procedure/function without arguments doesn't get called, but rather it's reference is taken when you omit the parenthesis's.
Try to change it to Assigned(Anode.ParentNode()) (which should have the same effect as François suggestion).
I have read A case against FreeAndNil but still don't understand why I cannot use this method in a class destructor ? Can anyone explain.
Update: I think the comment from Eric Grange was most useful for me. The link show that this is not obvious how to deal with it and it is mainly a matter of taste. Also the method FreeAndInvalidate was useful.
The problem with that is that many
seem to use FreeAndNil as some magic
bullet that will slay that mysterious
crash dragon. If using FreeAndNil() in
the destructor seems to solve a crash
or other memory corruption problems,
then you should be digging deeper into
the real cause. When I see this, the
first question I ask is, why is the
instance field being accessed after
that instance was destroyed? That
typically points to a design problem.
It argues that it hides the real problem you have. It must mean your code is accessing properties/fields/methods of an object that is already destroyed (the destructor is called). So instead of hiding the real problem with FreeAndNil you should really be solving the underlying problem.
This code below would not crash if you would use FreeAndNil PropertyA in the destructor of SomeObject. But it hides the real problem that SomeObject is used after it is destroyed. It is better to solve this design problem (accessing destroyed objects) instead of hiding it.
SomeObject.Free; // Destructor called
if Assigned(SomeObject.PropertyA) then // SomeObject is destroyed, but still used
SomeObject.PropertyA.Method1;
EDIT
On the other case, one could argue that if FreeAndNil is not used, the code would not crash either. Since even though the object is destroyed, the memory might not be reused and all structures might be in tact. The code above might even run without problems if Free is used to destroy PropertyA instead of FreeAndNil.
And if FreeAndNil was used to destroy SomeObject, you would also see the real problem no matter what the code in the destructor is.
So although I agree with the argument that it could hide the real design flaw and personally do not use FreeAndNil in destructors, it is not some magic bullet to discover such design flaws.
The issue is fairly easy to explain, and the contention around this issue is more subjective than objective. The use of FreeAndNil is simply unnecessary if the variable reference to the object being freed will go out of scope:
procedure Test;
var
LObj: TObject;
begin
LObj := TObject.Create;
try
{...Do work...}
finally
//The LObj variable is going out of scope here,
// so don't bother nilling it. No other code can access LObj.
//FreeAndNil(LObj);
LObj.Free;
end;
end;
In the above code snippet, nilling the LObj variable would be pointless, for the reason given. However, if an object variable can be instantiated and freed several times during the lifetime of an app, then it becomes necessary to check whether the object is indeed instantiated or not. The easy way to check this is whether the object reference has been set to nil. In order to facilitate that setting to nil, the FreeAndNil() method will both free the resources, and set nil for you. Then, in code you can check to see whether the object is instantiated with either LObj = nil or Assigned(LObj).
The case of whether to use .Free or FreeAndNil() in object destructors is a grey area, but for the most part, .Free should be safe, and nilling the references to sub-objects in the destructor should be unnecessary. There are various arguments around how to deal with exceptions in constructors and destructors.
Now pay attention: if you prefer to pick and choose whether to use .Free or FreeAndNil() depending on the specific circumstances outlined above, that's fine, but note that the cost of a bug due to not nilling a freed object reference that is subsequently accessed can be very high. If the pointer is subsequently accessed (object freed but reference not set to nil), it can happen that you are unlucky and the detection of memory corruption occurs many lines of code away from the access to the freed-but-unnilled object reference. This kind of bug can take a very long time to fix, and yes, I know how to use FastMM.
Therefore for some people, including me, it has become habit (a lazy one, perhaps) to simply nil all object pointers when they're freed, even when the nilling is not strictly necessary.
I tended to use FreeAndNil fairly often (for whatever reason) but not anymore. What made me stop doing this is not related to whether the variable needs to be nil afterwards or not. It is related to code changes, especially type changes of variables.
I got bitten several times after changing the type of a variable from TSomething to an interface type ISomething. FreeAndNil doesn't complain and happily continues doing its job on the interface variable. This sometimes lead to mysterious crashes which could not be immediately followed back to the place where it happened and took some time to find.
So I switched back to calling Free. And when I deem it necessary I set the variable to nil afterwards explicitly.
i hunted down a stackoverflow question talking about FreeAndNil and FreeAndInvalidate to mention that the Microsoft Security Development Lifecycle now recommends something similar to FreeAndInvalidate:
In light of the SDL recommendation above – and a number of real bugs related to reuse of stale references to deleted C++ objects...
The obvious choice of sanitization value is NULL. However there are downsides to that: we know that a large number of application crashes are due to NULL pointer dereferences. Choosing NULL as a sanitization value would mean that new crashes introduced by this feature may be less likely to stand out to a developer as needing a proper solution – i.e. proper management of C++ object lifetimes – rather than just a NULL check that suppresses the immediate symptom.
Also checks for NULL are a common code construct meaning that an existing check for NULL combined with using NULL as a sanitization value could fortuitously hide a genuine memory safety issue whose root cause really does needs addressing.
For this reason we have chosen 0x8123 as a sanitization value – from an operating system perspective this is in the same memory page as the zero address (NULL), but an access violation at 0x8123 will better stand out to the developer as needing more detailed attention.
So basically:
procedure FreeAndInvalidate(var obj);
var
temp : TObject;
const
INVALID_ADDRESS = $8123; //address on same page as zero address (nil)
begin
//Note: Code is public domain. No attribution required.
temp := TObject(obj);
Pointer(obj) := Pointer(INVALID_ADDRESS);
temp.Free;
end;