//where object is created:

GDamageBox* box = new GDamageBox;
box->OnLoad("bin/images/db.bmp", 64, 64, 1);
box->SetSource(this,100,0);  
GObject::ObjectList.push_back(box);   //static list of game objects


//where object is destroyed:

std::vector<GObject*>::iterator it = GObject::ObjectList.begin();

while(*it!=this)
   advance(it,1);

delete *it;  //also tried "delete this"
GObject::ObjectList.erase(it);

//destructor

GDamageBox::~GDamageBox() {
    SourceObj = NULL;   //we don't delete SourceObj, as its still being used!
}

Quote:I haven't done C++ in quite some time, but shouldn't it be "delete it"? (without the *)

Quote:Original post by BLiTZWiNG
I haven't done C++ in quite some time, but shouldn't it be "delete it"? (without the *)

std::vector<GObject*>::iterator it = std::find(GObject::ObjectList.begin(),GObject::ObjectList.end(), this);if(it!=GObject::ObjectList.end()){delete *it;  //also tried "delete this"GObject::ObjectList.erase(it);}else{std::cout << "Object not in list" << std::endl;}//destructorGDamageBox::~GDamageBox() {    SourceObj = NULL;   //we don't delete SourceObj, as its still being used!}

Quote:Original post by nobodynews
I am concerned about this:

GDamageBox::~GDamageBox() {    SourceObj = NULL;   //we don't delete SourceObj, as its still being used!}

When is it NOT used that you DO delete it? What IS it? Also, if it's a member variable of your object then you don't need to set it to NULL. It is destroyed RIGHT after that after all.

Quote:Original post by nobodynews
edit: While I'm here I am concerned about some other things you do. For instance, after creating a new GDamageBox (what is the G for? I don't think it could mean global because GDamageBox and GObject are both types. Seems entirely unnecessary and as it confuses at least one person--me--it probably doesn't do what you want it to)

If you also call "OnLoad" and "SetSource" after creating a GDamageBox then just make a constructor that looks like this when calledGDamageBox * box = new GDamageBox("bin/images/db.bmp", 64, 64, 1, this, 100, 0);only maybe with a better order for the arguments.


Quote:Original post by nobodynews
I have to wonder why you think having a static list of game objects is helpful at all. Maybe you are trying to implement your idea of a singleton? You probably designed yourself into a corner where that seemed like the best solution to whatever problem you were having, but I would avoid that in the future if I were you and get rid of it if possible.

Quote:Original post by Kwizatz

Quote:Original post by BLiTZWiNG
I haven't done C++ in quite some time, but shouldn't it be "delete it"? (without the *)

No, "it" is an iterator not a pointer, to get the pointer (or a reference to the contained object) you use *it.

What is advance?

try this:

*** Source Snippet Removed ***

Not sure if you're supposed to be destroying objects inside their own methods...

Edit: Yeah, you can call "delete this" but can't access any variables or methods after you do, definitely should not be calling delete this inside the destructor.

    for(int i = 0;i < GObject::ObjectList.size();i plus plus) {        if(!GObject::ObjectList) continue;        GObject::ObjectList->OnLoop();        if(GObject::ObjectList->Dead) {            delete GObject::ObjectList.at(i);            GObject::ObjectList.erase(GObject::ObjectList.begin() plus i);        }    }

Quote:Original post by Kwizatz
std::vector may not reallocate memory each time you erase an element and keep the memory used by erased nodes to allocate to newly added elements, the memory usage increment may come from that.

As for the object, if the destructor is called, then its being deleted.

So, diagnosing a memory leak based only in memory usage may not be accurate, try Visual Studio's Built in memory leak detector or Valgrind if you're using Linux.

Edit: Actually, the VC leak detection seems to be a pain to use, not sure if CodeAnalyst detects memory leaks, it should.