Erk, just came back to this and realized I never replied.
It doesn't happen at all in release mode. No Unhandled Memory Exception at all.
Quick Build is disabled and all modules have been rebuilt ( by which I mean all modules were rebuilt over and over until none would recompile, ensuring that modules which rely upon other modules were not an issue.
I managed to get the debugger to kick in by NOT using GCSetMode 4 ( which I had previously been using as it was supposed to offer verbose GC, but I never noticed any difference. )
The error is being triggered in Win32MaxGUI, specifically in TIntWrapper's create function, on the line which creates a new TIntWrapper. I don't actually have any idea what this is for, but I guess it's related to the way I shut down my GUI stuff? The gadget in question would appear to be a Tabber, if that helps any.
Why this would show up on GCCollect, I really don't know, because I destroy these gadgets in a shutdown method, not in a delete method. This debug information only came up once though, and never again since, so perhaps it was a glitch.
It doesn't happen at all in release mode. No Unhandled Memory Exception at all.
Quick Build is disabled and all modules have been rebuilt ( by which I mean all modules were rebuilt over and over until none would recompile, ensuring that modules which rely upon other modules were not an issue.
I managed to get the debugger to kick in by NOT using GCSetMode 4 ( which I had previously been using as it was supposed to offer verbose GC, but I never noticed any difference. )
The error is being triggered in Win32MaxGUI, specifically in TIntWrapper's create function, on the line which creates a new TIntWrapper. I don't actually have any idea what this is for, but I guess it's related to the way I shut down my GUI stuff? The gadget in question would appear to be a Tabber, if that helps any.
Why this would show up on GCCollect, I really don't know, because I destroy these gadgets in a shutdown method, not in a delete method. This debug information only came up once though, and never again since, so perhaps it was a glitch.