We Keep Coding

Finalizer on GC.Collect not called as I expect [duplicate]

Consider the below code:
public class Class1
{
public static int c;
~Class1()
{
c++;
}
}
public class Class2
{
public static void Main()
{
{
var c1=new Class1();
//c1=null; // If this line is not commented out, at the Console.WriteLine call, it prints 1.
}
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine(Class1.c); // prints 0
Console.Read();
}
}
Now, even though the variable c1 in the main method is out of scope and not referenced further by any other object when GC.Collect() is called, why is it not finalized there?

You are being tripped up here and drawing very wrong conclusions because you are using a debugger. You'll need to run your code the way it runs on your user's machine. Switch to the Release build first with Build + Configuration manager, change the "Active solution configuration" combo in the upper left corner to "Release". Next, go into Tools + Options, Debugging, General and untick the "Suppress JIT optimization" option.
Now run your program again and tinker with the source code. Note how the extra braces have no effect at all. And note how setting the variable to null makes no difference at all. It will always print "1". It now works the way you hope and expected it would work.
Which does leave with the task of explaining why it works so differently when you run the Debug build. That requires explaining how the garbage collector discovers local variables and how that's affected by having a debugger present.
First off, the jitter performs two important duties when it compiles the IL for a method into machine code. The first one is very visible in the debugger, you can see the machine code with the Debug + Windows + Disassembly window. The second duty is however completely invisible. It also generates a table that describes how the local variables inside the method body are used. That table has an entry for each method argument and local variable with two addresses. The address where the variable will first store an object reference. And the address of the machine code instruction where that variable is no longer used. Also whether that variable is stored on the stack frame or a cpu register.
This table is essential to the garbage collector, it needs to know where to look for object references when it performs a collection. Pretty easy to do when the reference is part of an object on the GC heap. Definitely not easy to do when the object reference is stored in a CPU register. The table says where to look.
The "no longer used" address in the table is very important. It makes the garbage collector very efficient. It can collect an object reference, even if it is used inside a method and that method hasn't finished executing yet. Which is very common, your Main() method for example will only ever stop executing just before your program terminates. Clearly you would not want any object references used inside that Main() method to live for the duration of the program, that would amount to a leak. The jitter can use the table to discover that such a local variable is no longer useful, depending on how far the program has progressed inside that Main() method before it made a call.
An almost magic method that is related to that table is GC.KeepAlive(). It is a very special method, it doesn't generate any code at all. Its only duty is to modify that table. It extends the lifetime of the local variable, preventing the reference it stores from getting garbage collected. The only time you need to use it is to stop the GC from being to over-eager with collecting a reference, that can happen in interop scenarios where a reference is passed to unmanaged code. The garbage collector cannot see such references being used by such code since it wasn't compiled by the jitter so doesn't have the table that says where to look for the reference. Passing a delegate object to an unmanaged function like EnumWindows() is the boilerplate example of when you need to use GC.KeepAlive().
So, as you can tell from your sample snippet after running it in the Release build, local variables can get collected early, before the method finished executing. Even more powerfully, an object can get collected while one of its methods runs if that method no longer refers to this. There is a problem with that, it is very awkward to debug such a method. Since you may well put the variable in the Watch window or inspect it. And it would disappear while you are debugging if a GC occurs. That would be very unpleasant, so the jitter is aware of there being a debugger attached. It then modifies the table and alters the "last used" address. And changes it from its normal value to the address of the last instruction in the method. Which keeps the variable alive as long as the method hasn't returned. Which allows you to keep watching it until the method returns.
This now also explains what you saw earlier and why you asked the question. It prints "0" because the GC.Collect call cannot collect the reference. The table says that the variable is in use past the GC.Collect() call, all the way up to the end of the method. Forced to say so by having the debugger attached and by running the Debug build.
Setting the variable to null does have an effect now because the GC will inspect the variable and will no longer see a reference. But make sure you don't fall in the trap that many C# programmers have fallen into, actually writing that code was pointless. It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not that statement is present when you run the code in the Release build. In fact, the jitter optimizer will remove that statement since it has no effect whatsoever. So be sure to not write code like that, even though it seemed to have an effect.
One final note about this topic, this is what gets programmers in trouble that write small programs to do something with an Office app. The debugger usually gets them on the Wrong Path, they want the Office program to exit on demand. The appropriate way to do that is by calling GC.Collect(). But they'll discover that it doesn't work when they debug their app, leading them into never-never land by calling Marshal.ReleaseComObject(). Manual memory management, it rarely works properly because they'll easily overlook an invisible interface reference. GC.Collect() actually works, just not when you debug the app.

[ Just wanted to add further on the Internals of Finalization process ]
You create an object and when the object is garbage collected, the object's Finalize method should be called. But there is more to finalization than this very simple assumption.
CONCEPTS:
Objects not implementing Finalize methods: their memory is reclaimed immediately, unless of course, they are not reachable by application code any more.
Objects implementing Finalize method: the concepts of Application Roots, Finalization Queue, Freachable Queue need to be understood since they are involved in the reclamation process.
Any object is considered garbage if it is not reachable by application code.
Assume: classes/objects A, B, D, G, H do not implement the Finalize method and C, E, F, I, J do implement the Finalize method.
When an application creates a new object, the new operator allocates memory from the heap. If the object's type contains a Finalize method, then a pointer to the object is placed on the finalization queue. Therefore pointers to objects C, E, F, I, J get added to the finalization queue.
The finalization queue is an internal data structure controlled by the garbage collector. Each entry in the queue points to an object that should have its Finalize method called before the object's memory can be reclaimed.
The figure below shows a heap containing several objects. Some of these objects are reachable from the application roots, and some are not. When objects C, E, F, I, and J are created, the .NET framework detects that these objects have Finalize methods and pointers to these objects are added to the finalization queue.
When a GC occurs (1st Collection), objects B, E, G, H, I, and J are determined to be garbage. A,C,D,F are still reachable by application code depicted as arrows from the yellow box above.
The garbage collector scans the finalization queue looking for pointers to these objects. When a pointer is found, the pointer is removed from the finalization queue and appended to the freachable queue ("F-reachable", i.e. finalizer reachable). The freachable queue is another internal data structure controlled by the garbage collector. Each pointer in the freachable queue identifies an object that is ready to have its Finalize method called.
After the 1st GC, the managed heap looks something similar to figure below. Explanation given below:
The memory occupied by objects B, G, and H has been reclaimed immediately because these objects did not have a finalize method that needed to be called.
However, the memory occupied by objects E, I, and J could not be reclaimed because their Finalize method has not been called yet. Calling the Finalize method is done by freachable queue.
A, C, D, F are still reachable by application code depicted as arrows from yellow box above, so they will not be collected in any case.
There is a special runtime thread dedicated to calling Finalize methods. When the freachable queue is empty (which is usually the case), this thread sleeps. But when entries appear, this thread wakes, removes each entry from the queue, and calls each object's Finalize method. The garbage collector compacts the reclaimable memory and the special runtime thread empties the freachable queue, executing each object's Finalize method. So here finally is when your Finalize method gets executed.
The next time the garbage collector is invoked (2nd GC), it sees that the finalized objects are truly garbage, since the application's roots don't point to it and the freachable queue no longer points to it (it's EMPTY too), therefore the memory for the objects E, I, J may be reclaimed from the heap. See figure below and compare it with figure just above.
The important thing to understand here is that two GCs are required to reclaim memory used by objects that require finalization. In reality, more than two collections cab be even required since these objects may get promoted to an older generation.
NOTE: The freachable queue is considered to be a root just like global and static variables are roots. Therefore, if an object is on the freachable queue, then the object is reachable and is not garbage.
As a last note, remember that debugging application is one thing, garbage collection is another thing and works differently. So far you can't feel garbage collection just by debugging applications. If you wish to further investigate memory get started here.

When an array is subject to Garbage Collection?

A few years ago I read the book the CLR via C# and the other day I got asked whether an array and still got a bit puzzled, the question was to figure out when the array in the method below is available to garbage collection:
public static double ThingRatio()
{
var input = new [] { 1, 1, 2 ,3, 5 ,8 };
var count = input.Length;
// Let's suppose that the line below is the last use of the array input
var thingCount = CountThings(input);
input = null;
return (double)thingCount / count;
}
According to the answer given here: When is an object subject to garbage collection? which states:
They will both become eligible for collection as soon as they are not
needed anymore. This means that under some circumstances, objects can
be collected even before the end of the scope in which they were
defined. On the other hand, the actual collection might also happen
much later.
I would tend to say that starting after line 6 (i.e. input = null;) the array becomes subject to GC but I am not that sure... (I mean the array is supposedly surely no longer needed after the assignment, but also struggling that it's after the CountThings call but at the same time the array is "needed" for the null assignment).

Remember objects and variables are not the same thing. A variable has a scope to particular method or type, but the object it refers to or used to refer to has no such concept; it's just a blob of memory. If the GC runs after input = null; but before the end of the method, the array is just one more orphaned object. It's not reachable, and therefore eligible for collection.
And "reachable" (rather then "needed" ) is the key word here. The array object is no longer needed after this line: var thingCount = CountThings(input);. However, it's still reachable, and so could not be collected at that point...
We also need to remember it isn't collected right away. It's only eligible to be collected. As a practical matter, I've found the .Net runtime doesn't tend to invoke the GC in the middle of a user method unless it really has to. Generally speaking, it is not needed or helpful to set a variable to null early, and in some rare cases can even be harmful.
Finally, I'll add that the code we read and write is not the same code actually used by the machine. Remember, there is also a compile step to translate all this to IL, and later a JIT process to create the final machine code that really runs. Even concept of one line following next is already an abstraction away from what actually happens. One line may expand to be several lines of actual IL, or in some cases even be re-written to involve all new compiler-generated types as with closures or iterator blocks. So everything here is really only referring to the simple case.

GC Myth: setting an object's reference to null will force the GC to collect it right away.
GC Truth: setting an object's reference to null will sometimes allow the GC to collect it sooner.
Taking part of the blogpost I'm referencing below and applying it to your question, the answer is as follows:
The JIT is usually smart enough to realize that input = null can be optimized away. That leaves CountThings(input) as the last reference to the object. So after that call, the input is no longer used and is removed as a GC Root. That leaves the Object in memory orphaned (no references pointing to it), making it eligible for collection. When the GC actually goes about collecting it, is another matter.
More information to be found at To Null or Not to Null

No object can be garbage-collected while it is recognized as existing. An object will exist in .NET for as along as any reference to it exists or it has a registered finalizer, and will cease to exist once neither condition applies. References in objects will exist as long as the objects themselves exist, and references in automatic variables will exist as long as there is any means via which they will be observed. If the garbage collector detects that the only references to an object with no registered finalizer are held in weak references, those references will be destroyed, causing the object to cease to exist. If the garbage collector detects that the only references to an object with a registered finalizer are held in weak references, any weak references whose "track resurrection" property is false, a reference to the object will be placed in a strongly-rooted list of objects needing "immediate" finalization, and the finalizer will be unregistered (thus allowing it to cease to exist if and when the finalizer reaches a point in execution where no reference to the object could ever be observed).
Note that some sources confuse the triggering of an object's finalizer with garbage-collection, but an object whose finalizer is triggered is guaranteed to continue to exist for at least as long as that finalizer takes to execute, and may continue to exist indefinitely if any references to it exist when the finalizer finishes execution.
In your example, there are three scenarios that could apply, depending upon what CountThings does with the passed-in reference:
If CountThings does not store a copy of the reference anywhere, or any copies of references that it does store get overwritten before input gets overwritten, then it will cease to exist as soon as input gets overwritten or ceases to exist [automatic-duration variables may cease to exist any time a compiler determines that their value will no longer be observed].
If CountThings stores a copy of the reference somewhere that continues to exist after it returns, and the last extant reference is held by something other than a weak reference, then the object will cease to exist as soon as the last reference is destroyed.
If the last existing reference the array ends up being held in a weak reference, the array will continue to exist until the first GC cycle where that is the case, whereupon the weak reference will be cleared, causing the array to cease to exist. Note that the lack of non-weak references to the array will only be relevant when a GC cycle occurs. It is possible (and not particularly uncommon) for a program to store a copy of a reference into a WeakReference, ConditionalWeakTable, or other object holding some form of weak reference, destroy all other copies, and then read out the weak reference to produce a non-weak copy of the reference before the next GC cycle. If that occurs, the system will neither know nor care that there was a time when non non-weak copies of the reference existed. If the GC cycle occurs before the reference gets read out, however, then code which later examines the weak reference will find it blank.
A key observation is that while finalizers and weak references complicate things slightly, the only way in which the GC destroys objects is by invalidating weak forms of references. As far as the GC is concerned, the only kinds of storage that exist when the system isn't actually performing a GC cycle are those used by objects that exist, those used for .NET's internal purposes, and regions of storage that are available to satisfy future allocations. If an object is created, the storage it occupied will cease to be a region of storage available for future allocations. If the object later ceases to exist, the storage that had contained the object will also cease to exist in any form the GC knows about until the next GC cycle. The next GC cycle won't destroy the object (which had already ceased to exist), but will instead add the storage which had contained it back to its list of areas that are available to add future allocations (causing that storage to exist again).

Why does this C# code note leak? [duplicate]

Consider the below code:
public class Class1
{
public static int c;
~Class1()
{
c++;
}
}
public class Class2
{
public static void Main()
{
{
var c1=new Class1();
//c1=null; // If this line is not commented out, at the Console.WriteLine call, it prints 1.
}
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine(Class1.c); // prints 0
Console.Read();
}
}
Now, even though the variable c1 in the main method is out of scope and not referenced further by any other object when GC.Collect() is called, why is it not finalized there?

You are being tripped up here and drawing very wrong conclusions because you are using a debugger. You'll need to run your code the way it runs on your user's machine. Switch to the Release build first with Build + Configuration manager, change the "Active solution configuration" combo in the upper left corner to "Release". Next, go into Tools + Options, Debugging, General and untick the "Suppress JIT optimization" option.
Now run your program again and tinker with the source code. Note how the extra braces have no effect at all. And note how setting the variable to null makes no difference at all. It will always print "1". It now works the way you hope and expected it would work.
Which does leave with the task of explaining why it works so differently when you run the Debug build. That requires explaining how the garbage collector discovers local variables and how that's affected by having a debugger present.
First off, the jitter performs two important duties when it compiles the IL for a method into machine code. The first one is very visible in the debugger, you can see the machine code with the Debug + Windows + Disassembly window. The second duty is however completely invisible. It also generates a table that describes how the local variables inside the method body are used. That table has an entry for each method argument and local variable with two addresses. The address where the variable will first store an object reference. And the address of the machine code instruction where that variable is no longer used. Also whether that variable is stored on the stack frame or a cpu register.
This table is essential to the garbage collector, it needs to know where to look for object references when it performs a collection. Pretty easy to do when the reference is part of an object on the GC heap. Definitely not easy to do when the object reference is stored in a CPU register. The table says where to look.
The "no longer used" address in the table is very important. It makes the garbage collector very efficient. It can collect an object reference, even if it is used inside a method and that method hasn't finished executing yet. Which is very common, your Main() method for example will only ever stop executing just before your program terminates. Clearly you would not want any object references used inside that Main() method to live for the duration of the program, that would amount to a leak. The jitter can use the table to discover that such a local variable is no longer useful, depending on how far the program has progressed inside that Main() method before it made a call.
An almost magic method that is related to that table is GC.KeepAlive(). It is a very special method, it doesn't generate any code at all. Its only duty is to modify that table. It extends the lifetime of the local variable, preventing the reference it stores from getting garbage collected. The only time you need to use it is to stop the GC from being to over-eager with collecting a reference, that can happen in interop scenarios where a reference is passed to unmanaged code. The garbage collector cannot see such references being used by such code since it wasn't compiled by the jitter so doesn't have the table that says where to look for the reference. Passing a delegate object to an unmanaged function like EnumWindows() is the boilerplate example of when you need to use GC.KeepAlive().
So, as you can tell from your sample snippet after running it in the Release build, local variables can get collected early, before the method finished executing. Even more powerfully, an object can get collected while one of its methods runs if that method no longer refers to this. There is a problem with that, it is very awkward to debug such a method. Since you may well put the variable in the Watch window or inspect it. And it would disappear while you are debugging if a GC occurs. That would be very unpleasant, so the jitter is aware of there being a debugger attached. It then modifies the table and alters the "last used" address. And changes it from its normal value to the address of the last instruction in the method. Which keeps the variable alive as long as the method hasn't returned. Which allows you to keep watching it until the method returns.
This now also explains what you saw earlier and why you asked the question. It prints "0" because the GC.Collect call cannot collect the reference. The table says that the variable is in use past the GC.Collect() call, all the way up to the end of the method. Forced to say so by having the debugger attached and by running the Debug build.
Setting the variable to null does have an effect now because the GC will inspect the variable and will no longer see a reference. But make sure you don't fall in the trap that many C# programmers have fallen into, actually writing that code was pointless. It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not that statement is present when you run the code in the Release build. In fact, the jitter optimizer will remove that statement since it has no effect whatsoever. So be sure to not write code like that, even though it seemed to have an effect.
One final note about this topic, this is what gets programmers in trouble that write small programs to do something with an Office app. The debugger usually gets them on the Wrong Path, they want the Office program to exit on demand. The appropriate way to do that is by calling GC.Collect(). But they'll discover that it doesn't work when they debug their app, leading them into never-never land by calling Marshal.ReleaseComObject(). Manual memory management, it rarely works properly because they'll easily overlook an invisible interface reference. GC.Collect() actually works, just not when you debug the app.

[ Just wanted to add further on the Internals of Finalization process ]
You create an object and when the object is garbage collected, the object's Finalize method should be called. But there is more to finalization than this very simple assumption.
CONCEPTS:
Objects not implementing Finalize methods: their memory is reclaimed immediately, unless of course, they are not reachable by application code any more.
Objects implementing Finalize method: the concepts of Application Roots, Finalization Queue, Freachable Queue need to be understood since they are involved in the reclamation process.
Any object is considered garbage if it is not reachable by application code.
Assume: classes/objects A, B, D, G, H do not implement the Finalize method and C, E, F, I, J do implement the Finalize method.
When an application creates a new object, the new operator allocates memory from the heap. If the object's type contains a Finalize method, then a pointer to the object is placed on the finalization queue. Therefore pointers to objects C, E, F, I, J get added to the finalization queue.
The finalization queue is an internal data structure controlled by the garbage collector. Each entry in the queue points to an object that should have its Finalize method called before the object's memory can be reclaimed.
The figure below shows a heap containing several objects. Some of these objects are reachable from the application roots, and some are not. When objects C, E, F, I, and J are created, the .NET framework detects that these objects have Finalize methods and pointers to these objects are added to the finalization queue.
When a GC occurs (1st Collection), objects B, E, G, H, I, and J are determined to be garbage. A,C,D,F are still reachable by application code depicted as arrows from the yellow box above.
The garbage collector scans the finalization queue looking for pointers to these objects. When a pointer is found, the pointer is removed from the finalization queue and appended to the freachable queue ("F-reachable", i.e. finalizer reachable). The freachable queue is another internal data structure controlled by the garbage collector. Each pointer in the freachable queue identifies an object that is ready to have its Finalize method called.
After the 1st GC, the managed heap looks something similar to figure below. Explanation given below:
The memory occupied by objects B, G, and H has been reclaimed immediately because these objects did not have a finalize method that needed to be called.
However, the memory occupied by objects E, I, and J could not be reclaimed because their Finalize method has not been called yet. Calling the Finalize method is done by freachable queue.
A, C, D, F are still reachable by application code depicted as arrows from yellow box above, so they will not be collected in any case.
There is a special runtime thread dedicated to calling Finalize methods. When the freachable queue is empty (which is usually the case), this thread sleeps. But when entries appear, this thread wakes, removes each entry from the queue, and calls each object's Finalize method. The garbage collector compacts the reclaimable memory and the special runtime thread empties the freachable queue, executing each object's Finalize method. So here finally is when your Finalize method gets executed.
The next time the garbage collector is invoked (2nd GC), it sees that the finalized objects are truly garbage, since the application's roots don't point to it and the freachable queue no longer points to it (it's EMPTY too), therefore the memory for the objects E, I, J may be reclaimed from the heap. See figure below and compare it with figure just above.
The important thing to understand here is that two GCs are required to reclaim memory used by objects that require finalization. In reality, more than two collections cab be even required since these objects may get promoted to an older generation.
NOTE: The freachable queue is considered to be a root just like global and static variables are roots. Therefore, if an object is on the freachable queue, then the object is reachable and is not garbage.
As a last note, remember that debugging application is one thing, garbage collection is another thing and works differently. So far you can't feel garbage collection just by debugging applications. If you wish to further investigate memory get started here.

Garbage Collection with For Loop in .Net 4.5/4.5.1 [duplicate]

Consider the below code:
public class Class1
{
public static int c;
~Class1()
{
c++;
}
}
public class Class2
{
public static void Main()
{
{
var c1=new Class1();
//c1=null; // If this line is not commented out, at the Console.WriteLine call, it prints 1.
}
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine(Class1.c); // prints 0
Console.Read();
}
}
Now, even though the variable c1 in the main method is out of scope and not referenced further by any other object when GC.Collect() is called, why is it not finalized there?

You are being tripped up here and drawing very wrong conclusions because you are using a debugger. You'll need to run your code the way it runs on your user's machine. Switch to the Release build first with Build + Configuration manager, change the "Active solution configuration" combo in the upper left corner to "Release". Next, go into Tools + Options, Debugging, General and untick the "Suppress JIT optimization" option.
Now run your program again and tinker with the source code. Note how the extra braces have no effect at all. And note how setting the variable to null makes no difference at all. It will always print "1". It now works the way you hope and expected it would work.
Which does leave with the task of explaining why it works so differently when you run the Debug build. That requires explaining how the garbage collector discovers local variables and how that's affected by having a debugger present.
First off, the jitter performs two important duties when it compiles the IL for a method into machine code. The first one is very visible in the debugger, you can see the machine code with the Debug + Windows + Disassembly window. The second duty is however completely invisible. It also generates a table that describes how the local variables inside the method body are used. That table has an entry for each method argument and local variable with two addresses. The address where the variable will first store an object reference. And the address of the machine code instruction where that variable is no longer used. Also whether that variable is stored on the stack frame or a cpu register.
This table is essential to the garbage collector, it needs to know where to look for object references when it performs a collection. Pretty easy to do when the reference is part of an object on the GC heap. Definitely not easy to do when the object reference is stored in a CPU register. The table says where to look.
The "no longer used" address in the table is very important. It makes the garbage collector very efficient. It can collect an object reference, even if it is used inside a method and that method hasn't finished executing yet. Which is very common, your Main() method for example will only ever stop executing just before your program terminates. Clearly you would not want any object references used inside that Main() method to live for the duration of the program, that would amount to a leak. The jitter can use the table to discover that such a local variable is no longer useful, depending on how far the program has progressed inside that Main() method before it made a call.
An almost magic method that is related to that table is GC.KeepAlive(). It is a very special method, it doesn't generate any code at all. Its only duty is to modify that table. It extends the lifetime of the local variable, preventing the reference it stores from getting garbage collected. The only time you need to use it is to stop the GC from being to over-eager with collecting a reference, that can happen in interop scenarios where a reference is passed to unmanaged code. The garbage collector cannot see such references being used by such code since it wasn't compiled by the jitter so doesn't have the table that says where to look for the reference. Passing a delegate object to an unmanaged function like EnumWindows() is the boilerplate example of when you need to use GC.KeepAlive().
So, as you can tell from your sample snippet after running it in the Release build, local variables can get collected early, before the method finished executing. Even more powerfully, an object can get collected while one of its methods runs if that method no longer refers to this. There is a problem with that, it is very awkward to debug such a method. Since you may well put the variable in the Watch window or inspect it. And it would disappear while you are debugging if a GC occurs. That would be very unpleasant, so the jitter is aware of there being a debugger attached. It then modifies the table and alters the "last used" address. And changes it from its normal value to the address of the last instruction in the method. Which keeps the variable alive as long as the method hasn't returned. Which allows you to keep watching it until the method returns.
This now also explains what you saw earlier and why you asked the question. It prints "0" because the GC.Collect call cannot collect the reference. The table says that the variable is in use past the GC.Collect() call, all the way up to the end of the method. Forced to say so by having the debugger attached and by running the Debug build.
Setting the variable to null does have an effect now because the GC will inspect the variable and will no longer see a reference. But make sure you don't fall in the trap that many C# programmers have fallen into, actually writing that code was pointless. It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not that statement is present when you run the code in the Release build. In fact, the jitter optimizer will remove that statement since it has no effect whatsoever. So be sure to not write code like that, even though it seemed to have an effect.
One final note about this topic, this is what gets programmers in trouble that write small programs to do something with an Office app. The debugger usually gets them on the Wrong Path, they want the Office program to exit on demand. The appropriate way to do that is by calling GC.Collect(). But they'll discover that it doesn't work when they debug their app, leading them into never-never land by calling Marshal.ReleaseComObject(). Manual memory management, it rarely works properly because they'll easily overlook an invisible interface reference. GC.Collect() actually works, just not when you debug the app.

[ Just wanted to add further on the Internals of Finalization process ]
You create an object and when the object is garbage collected, the object's Finalize method should be called. But there is more to finalization than this very simple assumption.
CONCEPTS:
Objects not implementing Finalize methods: their memory is reclaimed immediately, unless of course, they are not reachable by application code any more.
Objects implementing Finalize method: the concepts of Application Roots, Finalization Queue, Freachable Queue need to be understood since they are involved in the reclamation process.
Any object is considered garbage if it is not reachable by application code.
Assume: classes/objects A, B, D, G, H do not implement the Finalize method and C, E, F, I, J do implement the Finalize method.
When an application creates a new object, the new operator allocates memory from the heap. If the object's type contains a Finalize method, then a pointer to the object is placed on the finalization queue. Therefore pointers to objects C, E, F, I, J get added to the finalization queue.
The finalization queue is an internal data structure controlled by the garbage collector. Each entry in the queue points to an object that should have its Finalize method called before the object's memory can be reclaimed.
The figure below shows a heap containing several objects. Some of these objects are reachable from the application roots, and some are not. When objects C, E, F, I, and J are created, the .NET framework detects that these objects have Finalize methods and pointers to these objects are added to the finalization queue.
When a GC occurs (1st Collection), objects B, E, G, H, I, and J are determined to be garbage. A,C,D,F are still reachable by application code depicted as arrows from the yellow box above.
The garbage collector scans the finalization queue looking for pointers to these objects. When a pointer is found, the pointer is removed from the finalization queue and appended to the freachable queue ("F-reachable", i.e. finalizer reachable). The freachable queue is another internal data structure controlled by the garbage collector. Each pointer in the freachable queue identifies an object that is ready to have its Finalize method called.
After the 1st GC, the managed heap looks something similar to figure below. Explanation given below:
The memory occupied by objects B, G, and H has been reclaimed immediately because these objects did not have a finalize method that needed to be called.
However, the memory occupied by objects E, I, and J could not be reclaimed because their Finalize method has not been called yet. Calling the Finalize method is done by freachable queue.
A, C, D, F are still reachable by application code depicted as arrows from yellow box above, so they will not be collected in any case.
There is a special runtime thread dedicated to calling Finalize methods. When the freachable queue is empty (which is usually the case), this thread sleeps. But when entries appear, this thread wakes, removes each entry from the queue, and calls each object's Finalize method. The garbage collector compacts the reclaimable memory and the special runtime thread empties the freachable queue, executing each object's Finalize method. So here finally is when your Finalize method gets executed.
The next time the garbage collector is invoked (2nd GC), it sees that the finalized objects are truly garbage, since the application's roots don't point to it and the freachable queue no longer points to it (it's EMPTY too), therefore the memory for the objects E, I, J may be reclaimed from the heap. See figure below and compare it with figure just above.
The important thing to understand here is that two GCs are required to reclaim memory used by objects that require finalization. In reality, more than two collections cab be even required since these objects may get promoted to an older generation.
NOTE: The freachable queue is considered to be a root just like global and static variables are roots. Therefore, if an object is on the freachable queue, then the object is reachable and is not garbage.
As a last note, remember that debugging application is one thing, garbage collection is another thing and works differently. So far you can't feel garbage collection just by debugging applications. If you wish to further investigate memory get started here.

Memory Leak questions

I've been reading a lot about this since I've been asked to fix a C# application that has memory leaking problems, but I haven't found an answer for these 2 issues:
Consider the following code:
private static ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
public void Function()
{
list.add(object1);
list.add(object2);
//didn't call clear() prior to reusing list
list = new ArrayList();
}
Since the list wasn't cleared before creating a new one, will this generate some sort of garbage that won't be released after the static list itself is disposed?
The second issue is regarding Form.Dispose(). I see that a lot of controls available on designer view (i.e. labels, picture boxes) require disposing. It's seems as though calling Dispose() on a Form causes all of these types of controls to be disposed also (correct me if I'm wrong), which is odd since the designer adds an overriden void Dispose(bool disposing) method which does no such thing. I'm assuming that this happens at the void Dispose(bool disposing) method of the base Form class.
The problem with the above is that it is not very clear to me what I need to do to ensure that all of the Form's resources are disposed correctly. I do not understand how the Form knows which objects it needs to dispose. For example, if in my form I have a field which is a custom IDisposable object, will the Form know that it needs disposing? Or should I add the code necessary to release the object myself?
Also, if I do need to add the code to dispose certain objects, then how do I deal with the fact that the designer has already overriden the void Dispose(bool disposing) method? Should I edit the designer generated code or is there a cleaner way to do this?
I hope that this wasn't to confusing, it's a bit hard to explain. Thanks

No, that's not a leak. When the garbage collector goes searching for object references, it won't find a reference to the original ArrayList anymore. You replaced it. So it will automatically destroy that original ArrayList object, as well as all of its elements if they are not referenced anywhere either.
The Form class knows how to dispose itself, as well as all the controls that are child windows on that form. This happens when the user closes the form, the WM_CLOSE message that Windows sends triggers this code. The Form.Controls collection helps it find the reference to all child controls so it can dispose them too.
However, this will not happen if you remove controls from the form yourself. Now it is up to you to call Dispose() on them. Particularly the Controls.Clear() method is dangerous. What is unusual about it is that this causes a permanent leak, the controls you remove are kept alive by the 'parking window'. Which keeps the window handle alive so you can move them elsewhere, on another container window for example. If you don't actually move them, they'll stay hosted on that parking window forever. No other classes in the framework quite behave this way.
This leak is easy to diagnose with Taskmgr.exe, Processes tab. View + Select Columns and tick USER Objects. If this steadily goes up while your program runs then you're leaking controls.

What is the scope of your Static arraylist. Looks to me that it has a form scope. If it is, it will not be disposed since static objects are always considered rooted and has an application life time. In my experience, statics always take more memory and get promoted to gen 2 because of this fact. If you have any doubts, take a .net memory profiler and check it out. You can also take memory dumps and analyze it using windbg to figure out the real cause of the leak.

In many memory-management frameworks, garbage-collected and otherwise, freeing up memory within an application does not generally cause the application to release that memory, but instead record the fact that the memory should be available for future requests. Part of the idea behind garbage collection is that when user code asks for memory and the application knows that it has at least that much immediately available, neither the code nor the application will care about whether any memory not needed for that request is "allocated" or "free". When the last reachable reference to an object is destroyed or becomes unreachable, the object effectively ceases to exist right then and there, but there's generally not much purpose in trying to reclaim memory formerly used by non-existent objects until such reclamation is either required to fulfill an allocation request, or the "memory freed per time spent" ratio is as good as its likely to get.
Note that for the system to reclaim the memory associated with an object, it is absolutely imperative that no reference of any sort exist to that object. If there exist any reachable weak references to an object which is not otherwise reachable, the garbage-collector must invalidate all such references (so they no longer identify the object) before the space used by the object can be reclaimed. If an otherwise-unreachable object has a registered finalizer, the system must put the object on a queue of things needing immediate finalization (thus making it ineligible for reclamation) and unregister the finalizer.
Weak references and the references used for finalization are both invalidated automatically by the GC when all other references to an object are abandoned, and thus do not cause memory leaks. There's another kind of reference, however, which can cause nasty leaks: event subscriptions from publishers that outlive subscribers. If object A subscribes to an event from object B, object A cannot be garbage-collected unless either (1) it unsubscribes from the event, or (2) B itself becomes eligible for garbage-collection. I find myself puzzled at why Microsoft didn't include some means of automatic event unsubscription, but they didn't.