What can cause VTable pointer to be 0xdddddddd in Win32 debug build?

I am debugging a defect and have narrowed it down to the vtable pointer for an object being 0xdddddddd. This answer indicates that Win32 debug builds will generally set dead memory, or memory which has been deleted, to this special value.

Note that the pointer itself looks valid, it's just the vtable pointer that is 0xdddddddd.

Here's a snippet of code:

开发者_开发技巧std::list<IMyObject*>::const_iterator it;
for (it = myObjects.begin(); it != myObjects.end(); ++it)
{
    IMyObject* pMyObject = *it;
    if (pMyObject == 0)
        continue;

    pMyObject->someMethod(); // Access violation     
}

If I break at the line of the access violation and watch pMyObject, I can see that pMyObject itself has a valid address (0x08ede388) but the __vfptr member is invalid (0xdddddddd).

Some notes:

• It's a single-threaded application, so this is most likely not a race condition or mutex issue.
• There don't appear to be any obvious issues like deleting the object further up the call stack before accessing it.
• This issue seems to only be reproducible on Windows 2008 server, but not on Windows 7.

Any suggestions about how to debug this further?

You are using the pointer after it has been released. Get a stack trace from a breakpoint in the destructor to see what is deleting it. Or better yet, use shared_ptr<> to avoid the problem.

Okay wow, so I've been programming in c++ for years and never discovered this until now... There are actually magic numbers/magic debug values that you can lookup to see what's going on with your raw pointers while debugging!

See here: In Visual Studio C++, what are the memory allocation representations?

and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(programming)#Magic_debug_values

If you start the program, put a break point at where you create the object. Then add a memory break point. This will fire if you overwrite or delete the memory. Well, or change it in any way.

Your object will look correct if the memory isn't overwritten, but your vtable may not be depending on compiler specifics.

It could also be a size problem if you are using inheritance. If you are using any kind of bucket memory or storing objects by anything but the pointer.

If pMyObject->someMethod() ultimately ends up modifying the myObjects list it will invalidate any of the current iterators.

Additionally if the pointer data is already deleted this will trigger the same issue.