Stefan Glienke

A singleton is never a good solution - it might be the easy one in the middle of a DI unfriendly architecture but that's it. Singletons do not only couple pieces together that don't have to but they also allow all kinds of crazy and hard to find errors - as every global state does.

If you think that it's related to .NET then call dcc yourself and see if that works - as I said already the error comes from the dcc. So it can only be that msbuild is passing down different values than before causing it to behave differently. To rule that out, eliminate the suspected factor from the equation, troubleshooting 101

I think I once saw there was an issue with non ascii characters in the path causing trouble.

Googling for this error and drf yields this: Source

I don't see an msbuild error - the error is from the delphi commandline compiler (dcc) and you see the error it raised: F2039 I guess drf is your custom file extension for the project being compiled? Make sure the file is not write protected or accessed by any other program if already existing.

What memory leak? That assert is telling you that CRYPTO_set_mem_functions returned 0

If with "you" you mean @Der schöne Günther then yes.

The compiler is responsible for writing typeInfo into the binary.

It seems indeed as if the TIntfFlag enum was never extended since Delphi6 (I think that was when interface RTTI was introduced) - I can confirm that at least since XE an interface type with $M+ gets a fourth flag (lets call it ifHasMethodInfo) set. If the type is an anonymous method type (see https://stackoverflow.com/q/49950534/587106) then there is a 7th enum value in the set. The situations where bit 5 and 6 are set are unknown to me. You might want to file an issue in QP about this. @Remy Lebeau Your diagnosis is still wrong - if the debugger shows then that means it has the 4th bit set. I can confirm my findings with this code: uses SysUtils, Rtti; type TIntfFlagEx = (ifHasGuid, ifDispInterface, ifDispatch, ifMethodInfo, ifUnknown, ifUnknown2, ifAnonymousMethod); TIntfFlagsEx = set of TIntfFlagEx; {$M+} IFoo = interface ['{35CFB4E2-4A13-48E9-8026-C1558001F4B7}'] procedure Main; end; {$M-} {$M+} IBar = interface(TProc) ['{AB2FEC1A-339F-4E58-B3DB-EC7B734F461B}'] end; {$M-} {$M+} TMyProc = reference to procedure; {$M-} procedure PrintIntf(typeInfo: Pointer); var context: TRttiContext; rttiInterface: TRttiInterfaceType; flags: TIntfFlagsEx; begin rttiInterface := context.GetType(typeInfo) as TRttiInterfaceType; flags := TIntfFlagsEx(rttiInterface.IntfFlags); Writeln(rttiInterface.Name, ' ', TValue.From(flags).ToString); end; begin PrintIntf(TypeInfo(IInterface)); PrintIntf(TypeInfo(IInvokable)); PrintIntf(TypeInfo(IFoo)); PrintIntf(TypeInfo(TProc)); PrintIntf(TypeInfo(TFunc<Integer>)); PrintIntf(TypeInfo(TMyProc)); PrintIntf(TypeInfo(IBar)); Readln; end. prints this: IInterface [ifHasGuid] IInvokable [ifMethodInfo] IFoo [ifHasGuid,ifMethodInfo] TProc [ifAnonymousMethod] TFunc<System.Integer> [ifAnonymousMethod] TMyProc [ifMethodInfo,ifAnonymousMethod] IBar [ifHasGuid,ifMethodInfo,ifAnonymousMethod]

The block will happen less than two months from now - read for yourself: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/01/get-your-apps-ready-for-64-bit.html

Ah, I see now, they are all hidden in that innocently looking TestParse and TestEmit methods - was expecting to see them more fine grained :) I have some suggestions for some possible low level optimizations (for example eliminating some unnecessary code from function prologues and epilogues caused by usually not raised exceptions but the fact the exception creation code is directly coded into the methods (and in fact is repeated multiple times) - will file a PR.

Does it pass https://github.com/yaml/yaml-test-suite ?

function _GetMem(Size: NativeInt): Pointer; begin if Size <= 0 then Exit(nil); Result := MemoryManager.GetMem(Size); if Result = nil then Error(reOutOfMemory); end; function GetMemory(Size: NativeInt): Pointer; cdecl; begin Result := MemoryManager.GetMem(Size); end; Do you see the difference? Also GetMem is an intrinsic that maps to System._GetMem

DCC_MapFile=3 See BDS\bin\CodeGear.Delphi.Targets starting at around line 400

Writing entire words in uppercase (even more so if colored red) is considered shouting on the internet

That was my point - no need to shout.

What should it show? scnr 😉

uses Spring.VirtualClass; procedure NotifyFree(const Self: TObject); var freeInstance: TFreeInstance; begin freeInstance := GetClassData(Self.ClassParent).FreeInstance; Writeln('Object of class ', Self.ClassName, ' destroyed'); freeInstance(Self); end; var vc: TVirtualClasses; o: TObject; begin vc := TVirtualClasses.Create; try o := TObject.Create; try vc.Proxify(o); GetClassData(o.ClassType).FreeInstance := NotifyFree; finally o.Free; end; finally vc.Free; end; end.

I know the repositories get maintenance and update for new Delphi releases but I wonder if there is actually a release planned. Last JCL release is 2.7 from september 2015 which probably does not support any Delphi version after that - last JVCL release is 3.49 also from september 2015. Since then we are in limbo state working with some master state - this is kinda far from optimal.

Anonymous methods normally don't appear in the procedure list (which I don't mind - so even if you decide to list them in the future, please make that optional). However when you have a function/procedure does not have any arguments and you don't write () they appear in the list: procedure Main; var f: TFunc<Integer>; p: TProc; f2: TFunc<Integer,Integer>; p2: TProc<Integer>; begin f := function: Integer begin end; // appears as empty entry in procedure list f := function(): Integer begin end; // does not appear p := procedure begin end; // appears as "begin end" in procedure list p := procedure() begin end; // does not appear p2 := procedure(x: Integer) begin end; // does not appear f2 := function(x: Integer): Integer begin end; // does not appear end;

What does QP have to do with a GExperts bug?

Yes - all major versions can coexist

Well if you are working with ignoramuses you have to get the bigger guns out and install some commit hooks to prevent them from committing unresolved conflicts. Google will help you finding out how that works.

Slap your coworker because he obviously did not resolve a conflict and just commited this (this is git 101). This is how git annotates the code when there is a conflict and usually you then call git mergetool (or similar) or just use the resolve conflict button in whatever git ui client you are using. Remove lines 2, 4 and 6 and decide if you want to keep 3 or 5

There are no false positives to this - if FastMM reports this it's true. These errors are usually very subtle and the reference to that freed instance might only live a few cycles more and unless there does not happen another memory allocation that might reuse this particular piece of memory there will never be a defect (in terms of an AV happening or something) which is why this usually goes unnoticed by most until you enable this option which is not part of the build-in FastMM version (which is a shame!). It's unbelievable how ignorant some vendors can be...