What if I have an object, say NSIndexPath in which before I do a copy I always release it first?
Is it possible to have a memory count under 0?
I am doing this to prevent memory leaks.. is this a good way?
//global already has some value before in here or it doesn't have a value.. I want to update
//this with a new value (I no longer care to the old pointer)
[global release]
global = [indexPath copy];
Don't. When the retain count reaches 0, your object will be dealloc'ed and its pointer will become invalid, so using it again will cause unpredictable results (namely crashing).
You should read through Apple's Memory Management Guide.
This is the fundamental rule:
You only release or autorelease objects you own. You take ownership of an object if you create it using a method whose name begins with “alloc”, “new”, “copy”, or “mutableCopy” (for example, alloc, newObject, or mutableCopy), or if you send it a retain message.
You use release or autorelease to relinquish ownership of an object. autorelease just means “send a release message in the future” (specifically: when the used autorelease pool receives a drain message).
Update:
As Josh pointed out, the one case you need to consider is when global and indexPath are the same. In that case, you would still "need" the pointer (to perform the copy), so you either autorelease (instead of releasing) or you use a temporary variable to handle that.
What you are doing is essentially correct, so long as global either has an old value that you no longer need or is nil. If it is one of a class's ivars, it will be nil when an instance of the class is created. The one catch is that if the new indexPath happens to be the same object as the one that's already in global, you will have over-released and you will crash.
// global points to object at 0x8BADFOOD
// indexPath also happens to be 0x8BADFOOD; for some reason, it
// hasn't changed since last time. This _can_ happen.
[global release]; // object at 0x8BADFOOD is deallocated
global = [indexPath copy]; // indexPath no longer valid!
// Crash! Bang! Boom!
The way to avoid this is to use a temp variable.
When you declare a property as copy and synthesize that property, the setter method that is created looks essentially like this, and you can do the same thing:
- (void)setMyFloozit:(Floozit *)newFloozit {
// Copy first in case newFloozit and myFloozit are for
// some reason the same object
// Take ownership of a copy of newFloozit
Floozit * tmp = [newFloozit copy];
// We no longer need old value of myFloozit, so we release it.
[myFloozit release];
// tmp contains a value that we own, we just need to assign
// it to the correct name.
myFloozit = tmp;
}
This could be made slightly better by checking first to see whether newFloozit and myFloozit are the same, and doing nothing if they are.
Related
I am testing the following code below. ffv is declared in the interface file.
ffv = [[FullFunctionView alloc] initWithFrame:self.view.bounds];
NSLog(#"%i", [ffv retainCount]); // prints 1
[self.view insertSubview:ffv belowSubview:switchViewsBtn];
NSLog(#"%i", [ffv retainCount]); // prints 2
[ffv release]; // you can release it now since the view has ownership of ffv
NSLog(#"%i", [ffv retainCount]); // prints 1
if (ffv == nil)
NSLog(#"ffv is nil");
// "ffv is nil" is not printed
[ffv testMethod]; // "test method called" is printed
this is my [ffv testMethod] implementation
- (void)testMethod
{
NSLog(#"test method called");
}
What I deduce in this case is that even if you release an object with retain count 2, you lose ownership of that object however, the reference is still kept.
Now, my question are:
Is my deduction correct?
Is there anything else important that can be deduced from this?
What are the complications caused by still keeping (using) ffv and calling methods from ffv? (My opinion is that this is ok since the view will always own ffv and won't release it until someone calls viewDidUnload. And as long as I don't pass ffv's reference to other objects.)
There are a couple of problems with using ffv after you have released it and it's only retained by your view controller's view.
1) It introduces a potential for future bugs, because later you might not remember that ffv is otherwise not retained. When you release the view (e.g. by replacing it with another view), you have a dangling pointer that you still hold a reference to.
2) In the special case of a UIViewController the view could be released at any time (you usually never call viewDidUnload yourself). The default behavior of UIViewController, when receiving a memory warning and the view is currently not visible, is to release the view, so unless you set the reference to nil in viewDidUnload, you have a dangling pointer again, even though you never explicitly released the view yourself.
1) Is my deduction correct?
Your deduction is correct. The Memory Management Programming Guide explains that each object has one or many owners. You own any object you create using any method starting with alloc, new, copy, or mutableCopy. You can also take ownership of an object using retain. When you're done with an object, you must relinquish ownership using release or autorelease.
Releasing the object doesn't change the value of any variables that reference that object. Your variable contains the object's memory address until you reassign it, no matter what retain count the object has. Even if the object's retain count goes to zero, causing the object to get deallocated, your variable will still point at that same address. If you try to access the object after it's been deallocated, your app will normally crash with EXC_BAD_ACCESS. This is a common memory management bug.
2) Is there anything else important that can be deduced from this?
Nothing comes to mind.
3) What are the complications caused by still keeping (using) ffv and calling methods from ffv? (My opinion is that this is ok since the view will always own ffv and won't release it until someone calls viewDidUnload. And as long as I don't pass ffv's reference to other objects.)
When you call release, you are telling the Objective C runtime that you no longer require access to the object. While there may be many cases like this one in which you know the object will still exist, in practice you really shouldn't access an object after calling release. You'd just be tempting fate and setting yourself up for future bugs.
I personally don't like peppering my code with release statements, because I don't trust myself to remember them 100% of the time. Instead, I prefer to autorelease my variables as soon as I allocate them like this:
ffv = [[[FullFunctionView alloc] initWithFrame:self.view.bounds] autorelease];
This guarantees that ffv will exist at least until the end of the method. It will get released shortly thereafter, typically before the next iteration of the run loop. (In theory this could consume excessive memory if you're allocating a large number of temporary objects in a tight loop, but in practice I've never encountered this case. If I ever do, it will be easy to optimize.)
The object is not deallocated until the retain count goes to 0. As long as it's not deallocated, you can keep using it without trouble. By retaining it you ensure that it won't be deallocated under your feet; however, if you retain another object that you know retains the first object, you can get away with this form of "indirect retaining". Don't complain when you move things around later and things start breaking, though.
if (ffv == nil)
NSLog(#"ffv is nil");
// "ffv is nil" is not printed
That's correct, releasing an object does not set the pointer to nil even if it is dealloced at that time. Good practice is to always set your pointer to nil after you release it.
You are correct to say that after you released it, it wasn't dealloced because the view still had a retain on it. But that's not how you should be thinking about it. If you want to use that object and you want it to be alive, retain it. Doesn't matter who else is retaining it. Your object has nothing to do with those other objects. You want it, retain it. You're done with it, release it and set your pointers to nil. If you don't set it to nil and everyone else also released it, you will have a dangling pointer to an object that was dealloced, and that will cause you a crash and much grievance.
so this:
[ffv release]; // you can release it now since the view has ownership of ffv
ffv = nil; // you released it, so that means you don't want it anymore, so set the pointer to nil
if you still want to use it, don't release it until you're done with it.
Well, I'm not sure 'losing' ownership is the right term. In Objective-C you have to carefully marshal your ownership of the object. If you create or retain an object, you are responsible for releasing it (either directly or via an autorelease pool). When you call release however, you don't lose a reference to the object, if something else has retained it, it will still be in memory, and your pointer will still potentially point to it.
You have a pointer ffv which is just a pointer to some memory, and you have the object which is created in the first line that ffv points to.
By calling release, you are stating that you no longer require the ponter ffv to point to a valid object, that in this context you would be happy for the object to be deallocated. The pointer still points to that bit of memory, and it is still there because its retain count was increased by assigning it to the view.
The line [ffv testMethod] is in danger of not working, as it follows the release and may not point to a valid object. It only works because something else is keeping it alive. ffv still has the same address value that it had when it was first assigned.
So in order:
Your deduction is correct.
Not really.
You shouldn't use ffv after the release call. You have no guarantee that the object is going to be there for you.
These are pointers we are using here, not references like you find in Java or C#. You have to marshal your ownership of the object, you create it, have some pointers to it and by careful management of retain and release calls you keep it in memory for as long as you need it.
Do methods retain the arguments that are passed? If so, can I release these arguments in the next line? And if not, then when do I release these objects (in case I am allocating these locally)?
The language will not retain arguments automatically. However, code that obeys the rules will retain or copy anything that it needs to keep around after execution leaves its scope.
In other words:
id object = [[SomeClass alloc] init];
[otherObject doSomethingWithObject:object];
[object release];
This code should always be OK, because if doSomethingWithObject: needs to keep its argument around, it will send it retain, and if it doesn't, it won't.
No, they simply handle the object, they don't control the memory.
You should release something in the method it was created.
Or, if it's a property or an ivar, you should release it in the dealloc (if it is retained).
Methods do not increment the reference count. However if you assign it to a variable with retain count then you need to explicitly send a nil message to both. Release of a variable can be done when you no longer want to use it. So a allocated variable will have its reference count incremented whenever a retain message is sent to it. So you need to send equal number of release messages till reference count becomes zero.
I have a header of a class A with a NSDictionary *data; in the interface, not as a property.
In one method I call another method of another class B that returns a NSDictionary, I make data = [class method], and all is well.
Later, when data is populated, I try to access data from another method of A, and the app crashes.
If I make a retain on data in the previous method:
data = [class method];
[data retain];
It all works, but I now have a memory leak. Why does it crash?
You have a crash in the first case because the dictionary returned is getting deallocated before you reference it; and a memory leak in the second case because you have a -retain without a corresponding -release.
Most methods that return objects return autoreleased objects. That guarantees that the object will persist until the end of the current run loop, but at that time the object will be released (that's what autorelease does). So if you want to keep the object alive beyond the current run loop, you have to retain it:
data = [[class method] retain];
But once you've retained an object, it's your responsibility to release it. For an object instance variable, the right time to do this is usually in -dealloc:
-(void) dealloc {
[data release];
}
Now, you should also be aware that if you overwrite data with another value, you also have to make sure that the old value gets released properly. That's one of the advantages of using properties: you can have the compiler write functions for you that take care of this. If your property is a retain property, than setting the value with
self.data = newvalue;
will a) release the old value, b) retain the new value, and c) set your instance variable to the new value. You'll still have to release the value yourself in dealloc when your object is destroyed, though.
Why is it a memory leak? If I understand your question, you should just have to do [data release]; in your dealloc method of class A.
When a method returns an object that is taken from and NSMutableArray does the object must be autoreleased? Check the following method. Also should I autorelease the nil value?
-(NSObject*)getElementByID:(NSString*)ID{
for(int i=0;i<[elements count];i++){
NSObject *element = (NSObject*) [elements objectAtIndex:i];
if([element.key isEqualToString:ID]){
return [element autorelease];
}
}
return nil;
}
You must not autorelease element because you are not an owner of it (you have not put a retain on it). You would have become an owner of it if you acquired it using alloc, new or retain. Since you acquired this object calling objectAtIndex:, you do not own it. See Three Magic Words. Calling autorelease here will cause a crash later do to over-release.
Your method name is incorrect and breaks KVC. A method that begins with get must take a pointer that will be updated with the result. This should be elementForID:. As noted above with the three magic words, naming in ObjC is very important to writing stable code
As a side note, it is traditional to use id is most cases rather than NSObject*. They mean slightly different things, but typically id is correct.
You never need to do any memory management related things to nil. So, no, you should not send autorelease to nil.
You also should not need to send autorelease to the element object that you are returning from your elements array. That object you are returning will remain in memory by virtue of elements itself having retained it. If the calling method would like to retain the value that you return, it may. But if that calling method only uses the returned value within its own scope, it is safe for it to do so without retaining it.
I am attempting to wrap my head around one part of the Objective-C memory model (specifically on the iPhone, so no GC). My background is C/C++/Java, and I am having an issue with the following bit of code (also wondering if I am doing this in an "Objective-C way" or not):
- (NSSet *) retrieve
{
NSMutableSet *set;
set = [NSMutableSet new];
// would normally fill the set in here with some data
return ([set autorelease]);
}
- (void) test
{
NSSet *setA;
NSSet *setB;
setA = [self retrieve];
setB = [[self retrieve] retain];
[setA release];
[setB release];
}
start EDIT
Based on comments below, the updated retrieve method:
- (NSSet *) retrieve
{
NSMutableSet *set;
set = [[[NSMutableSet alloc] initWithCapacity:100] autorelease];
// would normally fill the set in here with some data
return (set);
}
end EDIT
The above code gives a warning for [setA release] "Incorrect decrement of the reference count of an object is not owned at this point by the caller".
I though that the "new" set the reference count to 1. Then the "retain" call would add 1, and the "release" call would drop it by 1. Given that wouldn't setA have a reference count of 0 at the end and setB have a reference count of 1 at the end?
From what I have figured out by trial and error, setB is correct, and there is no memory leak, but I'd like to understand why that is the case (what is wrong with my understanding of "new", "autorelease", "retain", and "release").
I though that the "new" set the reference count to 1. Then the "retain" call would add 1, and the "release" call would drop it by 1. Given that wouldn't setA have a reference count of 0 at the end and setB have a reference count of 1 at the end?
You're leaving out the autorelease. When -(void)test gets a set, its retain count is 0. You don't retain setA, so it already has a retain count of 0 when you try to release it, hence the error message.
The fundamental rule for memory management is quite simple: calls to alloc, new and copy* must be balanced by calls to release/autorelease. The former take ownership, the latter relinquish ownership.
The only tricky part is when dealing with shared objects, where you don't take ownership of an object, so it might be discarded in between the time you get a reference to it and when you use it. This has a simple solution: if in doubt, retain it.
You can make things even simpler by using properties in many situations.
Don't think in terms of absolute numbers. That can be very deceptive. Think of retains and releases as deltas if you must have a number — in this case, the autorelease has already balanced the new (a +1 delta and a -1 delta), so that method manages its memory correctly and the receiver doesn't need to do anything unless it wants to keep the object around longer.
Definitely read the memory management docs. It really is as simple as following the rules described there. It's a very simple contract of ownership where you claim ownership when you want an object to stick around and relinquish ownership when you don't care anymore. In the case above, you relinquish ownership in the retrieve method, so trying to relinquish ownership when you don't have it is obviously a bug.
As the profiler message hints, you should be thinking in terms of ownership. As noted in the memory management rules, whenever you have an object that you have created with +alloc, +new, -copy, or -mutableCopy, you own it and are responsible for releasing it eventually. (In fact, +new is just shorthand for [[MyClass alloc] init].)
-retain takes an object that you didn't initially own and makes you own it.
-release takes an object that you own and releases ownership of it.
-autorelease takes an object that you own and releases ownership of it, but also guarantees that the object will exist for at least a little bit longer.
Your -retrieve method does not transfer ownership of the object it returns. This is good—it follows the memory management rules (the method isn't +alloc, +new, -copy, or -mutableCopy). Therefore, using -release on it without using -retain is an error. It would be equally valid to not retain or release the result from -retrieve, as long as the object will have a temporary lifetime—your -autorelease guarantees temporary existence of the object.
http://www.macresearch.org/difference-between-alloc-init-and-new
You probably want
NSMutableSet *set = [[NSMutableSet alloc] initWithCapacity: someNumber];
or
NSMutableSet *set = [NSMutableSet setWithCapacity: someNumber];