I'm aware of the compiler layout behind the scene - and the fact that
regardless of the length of the dynamic array, my call to GetMem (or
New) does NOT have to allocate memory for the dynamic array's contents,
just it's overhead :)
However, the compiler gets the size right using New rather than GetMem
:) So thanks for the tip.
Cheers
D
On 29/08/11 16:23, Jolyon Smith wrote:
Is it a compiler *error* or just a compiler _behaviour_ ?
I haven't looked into it in detail, but dynamic arrays are notoriously
slippery when you are working with them at a low level and alarm bells
started ringing as soon as I saw they were involved.
In particular, a dynamic array is a reference type, like a string. So
whilst their may be additional RTTI at a negative offset from the base
address of the array, the "array" itself may well be a pointer, hence
"sizeof()" will return 4 - the size of a pointer - no matter how many
items may be in the array (as opposed to Length(), obviously).
NOTE: sizeof(String) also yields "4" even though we all know that a
String variable requires many more bytes than that.
As far as this particular example goes, do you get any better results
using the typed New() function rather than GetMem() which knows
nothing about the "type" of memory required by the pointer you are
initialising and just blithely allocates the specified number of bytes...:
Instead of >> LogData := GetMem( ... );
Use >> New( LogData );
And see if you get better results. :)
(Also, don't forget to use "Dispose()" to deallocate the memory
obtained with "New()", rather than FreeMem())
On 28 August 2011 21:33, David Moorhouse (DUG)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I believe it is a compiler error and will raise a QA ticket
Thanks for your help
D
On 26/08/11 08:17, Peter Ingham wrote:
> Try filling LogData with binary zeros after the Getmem& before
the assign.
>
> FillChar (LogData^, sizeof(TLogData), 0);
>
> I believe the uninitialized memory is messing up the compiler magic
> associated with the dynamic array.
>
>
> Any reason the local Tlogdata record is referenced via a pointer?
>
> I suspect the following will also work:
> procedure TUserClass.Log(const LogType: TLogType; const Args:
array of
> const );
> var
> LogData: TLogData;
> begin
> LogData.LogType := LogType;
> LogData.LogArgs := CreateConstArray(Args);
> // ... do some other stuff with the LogData item finally
calling
> end;
>
> Cheers
>
> On 26/08/2011 1:49 a.m., David Moorhouse wrote:
>> Hi Peter
>>
>> Been there done that :)
>>
>> The function call is fine. It is the assignment that causes
the AV -
>> because the "bucket" is too small.
>> Assigning it with 16 bytes fixes the problem, regardless of how
many
>> items the array holds.
>>
>> I smell compiler magic in the background.
>>
>> Cheers
>
>> D
>>
>> On 25/08/11 17:29, Peter Ingham wrote:
>>> Another attempt to reply...
>>>
>>> First thing to do is determine if the crash occurs in the
procedure call,
>>> on the subsequent assign, or in between.
>>>
>>> Give this a try:
>>> procedure TUserClass.Log(const LogType: TLogType; const
Args: array of
>>> const );
>>> var
>>> LogData: PLogData;
>>> TempArgs : TConstArray;
>>> begin
>>> // size of record TLogData does not work
>>> GetMem(LogData, sizeof(TLogData));
>>> LogData.LogType := LogType;
>>> // blows up on one of these lines
>>> TempArgs := CreateConstArray(Args);
>>> LogData.LogArgs := TempArgs;
>>> // ... do some other stuff with the LogData item finally
calling
>>> FreeMem
>>> end;
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the size of a dynamic array, like a string
variable, the
>>> variable (LogArgs in this case) is the size of a pointer (i.e.
4 bytes
>>> for Win32). If the pointer is non-zero, it points to a
structure which
>>> includes the adjacent array elements preceded by a length.
>>>
>>> One thing to watch out for is that Getmem does not clear the
allocated
>>> memory, so LogData after the Getmem call will contain any old
rubbish.
>>> The reference to LogData.LogArgs in the assignment may be
>>> dereferencing a non-zero pointer& attempting to use whatever it
>>> contains.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/08/2011 11:40 a.m., David Moorhouse (DUG) wrote:
>>>> I have the following code snippet
>>>>
>>>> <code>
>>>> type
>>>> PConstArray = ^TConstArray;
>>>> TConstArray = array of TVarRec;
>>>>
>>>> function CreateConstArray(const Elements: array of const):
TConstArray;
>>>>
>>>> type
>>>> TLogType = (ltError, ltWarn, ltInfo);
>>>> PLogData = ^TLogData;
>>>> TLogData = record
>>>> LogType: TLogType;
>>>> LogArgs: TConstArray;
>>>> end;
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> procedure TUserClass.Log(const LogType: TLogType; const Args:
array of
>>>> const );
>>>> var
>>>> LogData: PLogData;
>>>> begin
>>>> // size of record TLogData does not work
>>>> GetMem(LogData, sizeof(TLogData));
>>>> LogData.LogType := LogType;
>>>> // blows up on next line
>>>> LogData.LogArgs := CreateConstArray(Args);
>>>> // ... do some other stuff with the LogData item finally calling
>>>> FreeMem
>>>> end;
>>>>
>>>> function CreateConstArray(const Elements: array of const):
TConstArray;
>>>> var
>>>> I: Integer;
>>>> begin
>>>> SetLength(Result, Length(Elements));
>>>> for I := Low(Elements) to High(Elements) do
>>>> Result[I] := // assign a TVarRec here
>>>> end;
>>>> </code>
>>>>
>>>> The code that assigns the memory only assigns 8 bytes - and
an access
>>>> violation ensues. If I replace the call to "sizeof" with the
number 16,
>>>> the code works fine.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of dynamic arrays was that the compiler
created a 4
>>>> byte
>>>> field before the first element that contained the length of
the array.
>>>>
>>>> So why does the sizeof function not reflect this ? And why do I
>>>> need 16
>>>> bytes not 12 (4 for LogType + 4 for length of array + 4 for
array
>>>> pointer)?
>>>> Also regardless of the number of items in the open array
parameter, 16
>>>> bytes works, so it does not relate the length of the TConstArray.
>>>>
>>>> Your thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
>>>> Post: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>>>> Unsubscribe: send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> with
>>>> Subject: unsubscribe
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
>> Post: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>> Unsubscribe: send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> with Subject: unsubscribe
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
> Post: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
> Unsubscribe: send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> with Subject: unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
Post: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
Unsubscribe: send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> with Subject: unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
Post: [email protected]
Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
Unsubscribe: send an email to [email protected] with
Subject: unsubscribe
