When is a C++ destructor called?

Others have already addressed the other issues, so I'll just look at one point: do you ever want to manually delete an object.

The answer is yes. @DavidSchwartz gave one example, but it's a fairly unusual one. I'll give an example that's under the hood of what a lot of C++ programmers use all the time: std::vector (and std::deque, though it's not used quite as much).

As most people know, std::vector will allocate a larger block of memory when/if you add more items than its current allocation can hold. When it does this, however, it has a block of memory that's capable of holding more objects than are currently in the vector.

To manage that, what vector does under the covers is allocate raw memory via the Allocator object (which, unless you specify otherwise, means it uses ::operator new). Then, when you use (for example) push_back to add an item to the vector, internally the vector uses a placement new to create an item in the (previously) unused part of its memory space.

Now, what happens when/if you erase an item from the vector? It can't just use delete -- that would release its entire block of memory; it needs to destroy one object in that memory without destroying any others, or releasing any of the block of memory it controls (for example, if you erase 5 items from a vector, then immediately push_back 5 more items, it's guaranteed that the vector will not reallocate memory when you do so.

To do that, the vector directly destroys the objects in the memory by explicitly calling the destructor, not by using delete.

If, perchance, somebody else were to write a container using contiguous storage roughly like a vector does (or some variant of that, like std::deque really does), you'd almost certainly want to use the same technique.

Just for example, let's consider how you might write code for a circular ring-buffer.

#ifndef CBUFFER_H_INC
#define CBUFFER_H_INC

template <class T>
class circular_buffer {
    T *data;
    unsigned read_pos;
    unsigned write_pos;
    unsigned in_use;
    const unsigned capacity;
public:
    circular_buffer(unsigned size) :
        data((T *)operator new(size * sizeof(T))),
        read_pos(0),
        write_pos(0),
        in_use(0),
        capacity(size)
    {}

    void push(T const &t) {
        // ensure there's room in buffer:
        if (in_use == capacity) 
            pop();

        // construct copy of object in-place into buffer
        new(&data[write_pos++]) T(t);
        // keep pointer in bounds.
        write_pos %= capacity;
        ++in_use;
    }

    // return oldest object in queue:
    T front() {
        return data[read_pos];
    }

    // remove oldest object from queue:
    void pop() { 
        // destroy the object:
        data[read_pos++].~T();

        // keep pointer in bounds.
        read_pos %= capacity;
        --in_use;
    }
  
~circular_buffer() {
    // first destroy any content
    while (in_use != 0)
        pop();

    // then release the buffer.
    operator delete(data); 
}

};

#endif

Unlike the standard containers, this uses operator new and operator delete directly. For real use, you probably do want to use an allocator class, but for the moment it would do more to distract than contribute (IMO, anyway).

1) If the object is created via a pointer and that pointer is later deleted or given a new address to point to, does the object that it was pointing to call its destructor (assuming nothing else is pointing to it)?

It depends on the type of pointers. For example, smart pointers often delete their objects when they are deleted. Ordinary pointers do not. The same is true when a pointer is made to point to a different object. Some smart pointers will destroy the old object, or will destroy it if it has no more references. Ordinary pointers have no such smarts. They just hold an address and allow you to perform operations on the objects they point to by specifically doing so.

2) Following up on question 1, what defines when an object goes out of scope (not regarding to when an object leaves a given {block}). So, in other words, when is a destructor called on an object in a linked list?

That's up to the implementation of the linked list. Typical collections destroy all their contained objects when they are destroyed.

So, a linked list of pointers would typically destroy the pointers but not the objects they point to. (Which may be correct. They may be references by other pointers.) A linked list specifically designed to contain pointers, however, might delete the objects on its own destruction.

A linked list of smart pointers could automatically delete the objects when the pointers are deleted, or do so if they had no more references. It's all up to you to pick the pieces that do what you want.

3) Would you ever want to call a destructor manually?

Sure. One example would be if you want to replace an object with another object of the same type but don't want to free memory just to allocate it again. You can destroy the old object in place and construct a new one in place. (However, generally this is a bad idea.)

// pointer is destroyed because it goes out of scope,
// but not the object it pointed to. memory leak
if (1) {
 Foo *myfoo = new Foo("foo");
}


// pointer is destroyed because it goes out of scope,
// object it points to is deleted. no memory leak
if(1) {
 Foo *myfoo = new Foo("foo");
 delete myfoo;
}

// no memory leak, object goes out of scope
if(1) {
 Foo myfoo("foo");
}