So, I'm fairly certain that if I plan on manipulating strings often, such as with stringByAppendingString, I should be using variables of type NSMutableString.
But what if I'm doing something like this?
UILabel *someLabel = [[UILabel alloc] init];
[someLabel setText: [[someDictionary objectForKey:#"some_key"] stringByAppendingString:#"some other string"];
I read that if you use stringByAppendingString on an NSString, you end up with leaks because the pointer associated with the initial NSString moves around, pointing to the new string created by the append, whereas with NSMutableString, your pointer always points to that mutable string.
So my question is, what is implicitly happening when I call stringByAppendingString on something that is a string, but not explicitly an NSString or an NSMutableString? Such as, in my above case, the value of some key in a dictionary. Is doing this wrong, and should I be doing something like below?
[[[NSMutableString stringWithString:[someDictionary objectForKey:#"some_key"]] stringByAppendingString:#"some other string"]]
I read that if you use
stringByAppendingString on an
NSString, you end up with leaks
because the pointer associated with
the initial NSString moves around,
pointing to the new string created by
the append, whereas with
NSMutableString, your pointer always
points to that mutable string.
That sounds like the advice of someone who didn't quite have a grasp of what is going on with the memory management. Sure, [NSString stringByAppendingString] returns a new string. But what you do with that new string is up to you. You could certainly cause a memory leak by reassigning the result to a retained property in a careless fashion, like so:
myStringProperty = [myStringProperty stringByAppendingString:#" more bits"];
The correct form would be to use self, like so:
self.myStringProperty = [myStringProperty stringByAppendingString:#" more bits"];
Follow the cocoa memory guidelines.
As for dictionaries and other collection types: treat what comes out of the dictionary appropriately given the type you know it to be. If you pull an object out which is actually an NSString, but try to use it as a NSMutableString, your app will fall over (with 'selector not found' or similar). So in that case, you do need to make a new NSMutableString from the NSString.
Interesting note: Apple chose to make NSMutableString a subclass of NSString. Something about that seems unwise to me -- if something looks to be immutable, because it has type NSString, I want it to be immutable! (But in fact it could be NSMutableString.) Compare that to Java, which has a String class and a completely separate BufferedString class.
I've always been a fan of [NSString stringWithFormat#"%#%#", a, b]; because then you clearly get a new autoreleased string and can dispose of "a" and "b" correctly.
With [someDictionary objectForKey:#"some_key"], you will be getting the type of object that was put into that dictionary originally. So blindly calling stringByAppendingString without knowledge of what's in that dictionary seems like a bad idea.
-stringByAppendingString is going to return you a new NSString that is distinct from both strings involved. In other words:
NSString *string3 = [string1 stringByAppendingString:string2];
string3 is an entirely new string. string1 isn't changed at all, nothing happens to its memory location or contents. The person who told you that probably just misunderstood what was going on.
[mutableString1 appendString:string2];
In this case, mutableString1 still points at the same object, but the contents of that object have been altered to include string2.
One last thing to keep in mind is that if you are using mutable strings, you should be careful with sharing references to it. If you pass your mutable string to some function which keeps a pointer to that mutable string and then your code changes that mutable string at some point in the future, the other reference is pointing at exactly the same object which means the other code will see the change as well. If that's what you want, great, but if not you must be careful.
One way to help avoid this problem is to declare your #property statements for NSStrings to be "copy" instead of "retain". That will make a copy of your mutable string before setting it in your property and the -copy method implicitly gives you a NON-mutable version, so it'll create an NSString copy of your NSMutableString.
If you follow the rules for memory management, you will be fine using stringByAppendingString. In a nutshell:
if you own an object, you need to release or autorelease it at some point.
you own an object if you use an alloc, new, or copy method to create it, or if you retain it.
Make sure you read up on Apple's Memory Management Rules.
In the first code sample in your question, you aren't using alloc, new, copy or retain on any of the NSStrings involved, so you don't need to do anything to release it. If outside of the code that you've included in the sample you are using alloc, new, copy or retain on any NSStrings, you would need to ensure that they are released later.
Related
I dont know how to declare a array which just stores pointers to objects. As per My understanding ,if I use method
[ someArray addObject:someObject ] ,
It would then add the copy of object to array and any changes to object wont get reflected to original object.
What I want is that create a array of pointers which would just point to objects and changes made to objects would persist. pardon me, If I am missing something basic.
An NSArray or NSMutableArray is an array of pointers. No copying is done.
you have your basics wrong. technically when you do that you create the array of pointers to those objects.
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSMutableArray_Class/Reference/Reference.html read the description.
If you want to get the object copied you have to explicitly say so.
Look at this question for example
Deep copying an NSArray
By the way you should use an NSMutableArray.
Also look at the superclass NSArray
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSArray_Class/NSArray.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/NSArray
specifically for the initWithArray:copyItems:
flag
If YES, each object in array receives a copyWithZone: message to
create a copy of the object—objects must conform to the NSCopying
protocol. In a managed memory environment, this is instead of the
retain message the object would otherwise receive. The object copy is
then added to the returned array.
If NO, then in a managed memory environment each object in array simply receives a retain message when it is added to the returned
array.
By default adding an object to a nsmutablearray increases its capacity if necessary, adds a retain for the object, and the pointer to the object.
...if I use method
[ someArray addObject:someObject ] ,
It would then add the copy of object to array and any changes to
object wont get reflected to original object.
While it technically doesn't pertain to the question, I simply must correct your terminology. "Copy" in Objective-C implies that the method -copy is sent to the object, which would create a new object in of itself. What Arrays do is send -retain to their objects, which means that the array itself now owns a stake in the object, which is why changes that don't reference the array (-objectAtIndex:), or have a valid claim to the object itself are not reflected.
What I want is that create a array of pointers which would just point
to objects and changes made to objects would persist. pardon me, If I
am missing something basic.
Well, unfortunately iOS does not support the class NSPointerArray, which would make your life significantly easy in regards to an actual array of pointers. Without getting into any C-craziness, I can only reiterate what I mentioned above: If you need to mutate an object in an array, just access it with a valid reference to it, or use -objectAtIndex. So long as you still have a valid claim on the object (a reference in this case, it's pointer didn't change because it was sent -retain) you can change it. Note the simple example below:
NSMutableString *str = [[NSMutableString alloc]initWithString:#"Hello"];
NSArray *arr = [[NSArray alloc]initWithObjects:str, nil];
NSLog(#"%#",arr);
[str appendString:#" Friend!"];
NSLog(#"%#",arr);
This prints:
2012-08-07 21:37:46.368 .MyApp[2325:303] (
Hello
)
2012-08-07 21:37:46.369 .MyApp[2325:303] (
"Hello Friend!"
)
Simple!
I find I usually directly use a NSString like:
self.text = #"word";
label.text = #"word";
function(#"word");
I think it is a wrong way to directly use NSString, because the #"word" will have a retainCount of 2 after it has been used. Is that right?
What is exactly the retainCount of #"" ? Is it an autorelease object or has a retain of 1?
What`s more, I encountered some memory leak as the pic shown below:
I suspect it is related to the direct use of the NSString.
Essentially, the retain count of NSString literals is infinite. The memory for these objects is reserved by the compiler at compile time and never gets released for the duration that your app is running, no matter how often you try to retain or release them.
This is another good example why it is wrong to care about retain counts. You should only care about the golden memory management rules: if you take ownership of an object (with alloc, new, copy or retain), you have to release or autorelease it later. Otherwise, you don't.
Quoting from String programming guide
The simplest way to create a string object in source code is to use the Objective-C #"..." construct:
NSString *temp = #"/tmp/scratch";
Note that, when creating a string constant in this fashion, you should avoid using anything but 7-bit ASCII characters. Such an object is created at compile time and exists throughout your program’s execution. The compiler makes such object constants unique on a per-module basis, and they’re never deallocated, though you can retain and release them as you do any other object.
the #"word" will have a retainCount of 2 after it has been used. Is that right?
No. This is a perfect illustration of why it is bad to think in terms of retain counts which are an internal implementation detail. You can think of string literals as strings that are "owned" by the executable image so they will not go away. You should treat them like any other Objective-C object.
If you do take a sneaky peek at the retain count of a string literal, you'll find it is set to some really big number (something like the maximum value for an NSInteger). This is treated as a special value by retain and release that they don't change.
The memory for string literals is allocated as part of the binary image at compile time. It can never go away. Your memory leak is not because of this.
No, it's a good thing to declare an autoreleased NSString by using directly #"". But NSString are retained in a particular way and it's not really possible to know what's being done at runtime. You may have weird retain count sometimes. Don't bother about your leak of 48 Bytes.... It's not related to your nsstring.
I'm using a NSMutable String to gain a string back from a database query. I've assigned the variable with #"" and then populate if found from the database. I've tried adding autorelease / release but this causes problems with references to the database call.
Can someone point out my error ?
I would have typed this code but I felt the analyzer arrows were useful.
You're creating an autoreleased NSMutableString and assigning the pointer strDBAAppVer to point to it. But then you throw away the reference to that object, and get the pointer strDBAppVer to point to a new object, an NSString with a retain count of 1.
What I think you want is inside your if statement is something like this:
NSString* databaseField = [[NSString alloc] initWithUTF ...etc.]
[strDBAppVer setString: databaseField];
[databaseField release];
strDBAppVer is first set to [NSMutableString stringWithString:#""], which is reasonable, memory-wise. However, later, you completely re-set the variable to a whole different object, created by alloc/initWithUTF8String:, making strDBAppVer sometimes point to an already-autoreleased object, and sometimes (when the if statement is true) point to an object with retain count +1.
That's why there's a leak but releasing causes issues. If the if statement is true, you've set your variable to point to an object with +1 count, and if it's false, you've set your variable to point to an entirely different object with 0 count.
This looks to me like confusion about mutable strings. Are you aware that, at least in the code posted, you don't actually mutate strDBAppVer? Try this instead:
NSString* strDBAppVer = #"";
Then, inside your if statement,
strDBAppVer = [[NSString alloc] initWithUTF8String:(char *)sqlite3_column_text(statementAppVer,0)];
//Now, realizing that strDBAppVer has just been reassigned to point
//to an entirely new object, one created with alloc/init, and therefore one that
//needs to be released,
[strDBAppVer autorelease];
Note the autorelease is only inside the if statement, so it doesn't accidentally overrelease your original value of #"". (Since constant strings shouldn't be released.)
For non-retained string declarations, are these three lines the same?
NSString *list2 = self.map;
NSString *list2 = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#", self.map];
NSString *list2 = [NSString stringWithString:self.map];
They all create an autoreleased string object, right? Is there a preferred method among these, or are there any differences in the memory usage or behavior of "list2" depending on these methods?
For some reason, I find the manipulation of strings in objective-C the most confusing transition from other languages.
The simple fact, You don't own the object in the above three cases,
So you could use either,
This is more related to choice of developer then performance.
Go through the Memory Management Programming Guide
They all create an autoreleased string object, right?
No, the first one merely assigns the pointer returned by string.map to list2. The second and third ones theoretically create new NSStrings that you don't own and assign them to list2. However, if string.map returns an immutable string, the third one will probably give you the same pointer (possibly retained and autoreleased).
In all cases you do not own the (new) string. That's actually all you need to know. They may be autoreleased, but it is not relevant to you using them.
I have a question about a retain and a NSString, if I have a method who a return a NSString, and I put the return NSString in a nsstring variable, I must do a retain or not?
NSString *myString = #"";
myString = [self methodWhoReturnString]; // I must do this?
myString = [[self methodWhoReturnString]retain]; // Or I must do this?
The Apple Developer Documentation on Memory Management explains the scenarios where you retain/release objects.
Simply put, if you want the string to stick around, you need to retain it until you're finished with it. If that is just the scope of the current function, you can get away without retaining it as if the string is already autorelease'd (likely) it won't get released until your function finishes and the current AutoReleasePool is purged.
Bear in mind that an NSString * could actually be pointing to an NSMutableString *. If it matters to you if the string is changed by some other function without you realizing, be sure to copy it: NSString * myCopyOfString = [mystring copy];
If the string is set to autorelease, which it most likely is, then yes you will need to retain it somehow. I would suggest doing this though:
myString = [[self methodWhoReturnString] copy];
this ensures you have retained the data in the string not just a reference to a string that might still be controlled elsewhere. Be sure you release your copy later!
Usually, methodWhoReturnString would return an autoreleased string, which means you should retain it if you want to keep it around.
So, if methodWhoReturnString is your method, I believe that to keep with convention you should return [stringToReturn autorelease]; from that method, and then retain it if you want to keep it.
You use retain if you're going to be using myString at a later point in time (i.e. after the current method has returned) to prevent it being autoreleased.
You don't need to use retain if it's just a temporary variable used within the current method, since in that case you do want it to be autoreleased.
One special case is properties. If you call self.blah = foo, you don't need to retain foo, since the setBlah: method should do it for you.
(there's a whole load of other complexities and edge cases, but this is a good rule of thumb to get you started on understanding what to do)
Given the code you provided, you shouldn't call -retain. In your example, the return value of a method that returns an instance of NSString is assigned to myString, an automatic local variable. If the assignment had been made to an instance variable or a static variable, you would want to call either retain or copy to guarantee that the reference remains valid beyond the end of the local scope.
In this case though, the reference to the NSString instance is stored in a variable that will be destroyed automatically at the end of the local scope, so your code needn't concern itself with the object's lifetime.
Any method that has alloc, new or copy in it automatically retains and infers that you have ownership of the object. All others shouldn't. It would be helpful if you had more context though. If we are in a contained method where this string is used briefly, then you probably don't need to retain. If it is going to be used for a while, you might want to use the #synthesize syntax to make it a property of the class you are in. When you use #property and #synthesize and call something like self.myProperty = something it will automatically retain.