In my current [game project](https://github.com/LiamM32/Open_Emblem), [something strange](https://github.com/LiamM32/Open_Emblem/issues/20) has happened as of a recent commit. When running `dub test`, all the unittests appear to pass, but then after the last unittest has concluded an "Invalid memory operation" happens. Removing a few lines replaces this error with a segfault, but either way, these errors shouldn't be happening. Weirdly, the commit where these errors first appear did nothing but replace a single class-member function with a seemingly identical function through a mixin template.

The errors seem to be related to object deletion. The traceback output for the first error, and where GDB points to for the second error, is the destructor for my `Unit` class.

You see, every `Unit` object is associated with a particular `Map` object and `Faction` object, which it hold references to. Those objects in turn each have an array of `Unit` objects that they are associated with. In the `Unit` destructor, I have it call the `removeUnit` function in both the associated `Map` and `Faction` objects. The errors are happening in either the `Unit` destructor itself, or the `removeUnit` function that it calls. Until the commit that introduced these errors, the `removeUnit` function was written directly in the `Map` class in it's module, but this commit replaced it with the mixin template `UnitArrayManagement`, which `Faction` also uses.

`Unit` destructor:
```
    ~this() {
        this.alive = false;
        if (this.map !is null) this.map.removeUnit(this);
        if (this.faction !is null) this.faction.removeUnit(this);
if (this.currentTile !is null) this.currentTile.occupant = null;
    }
```

```
template UnitArrayManagement(alias Unit[] unitsArray) {
    bool removeUnit(Unit unit) {
        import std.algorithm.searching;
        writeln("Doing `Map.removeUnit`");
        Unit[] shiftedUnits = unitsArray.find(unit);
ushort unitKey = cast(ushort)(unitsArray.length - shiftedUnits.length);
        debug {
            writeln("unitsArray: ");
foreach (listedUnit; unitsArray) writeln(listedUnit.name~", ");
            writeln("shiftedUnits: ");
foreach (listedUnit; shiftedUnits) writeln(listedUnit.name~", ");
        }
        if (shiftedUnits.length > 0) {
            debug writeln("shiftedUnits.length > 0");
            unitsArray[$-shiftedUnits.length] = null;
            for (ushort i=0; i<shiftedUnits.length-1; i++) {
debug writeln("In loop. unitKey = ", unitKey, ", i = ", i);
                unitsArray[unitKey+i] = unitsArray[unitKey+i+1];
            }
            unitsArray.length--;
            return true;
        } else return false;
    }
}
```

The first error happens because I inserted some uses of `writeln` for debugging purposes in the new version of `removeUnit` (because I haven't figured out how to do the same thing with GDB), in which I try to get it to print the names of all the units in the array before deleting any of them. I suppose that it might get a `Invalid memory operation` when trying to access a member of a `Unit` object that no longer exists, but this shouldn't be happening. When that other `Unit` object got destroyed, the destructor should have called this same `removeUnit` function to remove it's reference from the array.

I read that the garbage collector *sometimes* but not *always* calls destructors on deletion, which sounds crazy to me. Is this a case of one unit being deleted without the destructor and then the next unit (of the same `Map` object) having the destructor called?

Are destructors normally called after a program is concluded?

The second error, which can be achieved by removing the instances of `writeln` in `removeUnit` (making it seemingly identical now to the version of this function previously defined in the `Map` class) is also strange. It seems to be a case of the `Unit` object calling a `Map` object that no longer exists. However, that's also strange, as the `Map` object is supposed to delete all it's associated units on destruction.

I wrote these destructors so that objects wouldn't have references floating around on their deletion, yet now I'm getting errors from the destructors.

So why are these things even happening *after* the unittests have been run? What else do I need to know about object destruction? What may be happening?

Reply via email to