I'm still a little confused on this.
I'm creating an object programmatically in Xcode, let's say a UILabel, which is also going to be a class wide property.
When is the proper time to release the object, in the method in which it is created, or in the dealloc method like normal IBOutlet objects?
Thanks.
This depends on whether your property is set to retain the value or not. Usually you want the accessors (generated by #synthesize) to handle the retain/release when the property is set to a new value. You specify such a property like this:
MyController.h
#interface MyController : UIViewController {
UILabel *myLabel;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) UILabel *myLabel;
#end
You can then use #synthesize to generate the default getters and setters. The default setter for a 'retain' property will release the current value and retain the new value. However, nothing is done for you in dealloc. Meaning, that when the controller is destroyed, your reference to you label will leak since release will not be called. For this reason, you need call release on all your 'retain' properties in dealloc, like this:
MyController.m
#implementation MyController
#synthesize myLabel;
-(void) dealloc {
self.myLabel = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
#end
Notice that in this case, self.myLabel = nil is almost equivalent to calling [myLabel release] since the setter will call release on the existing value and then call retain on the new value. Since the new value is nil, calling [nil retain] has no effect. I prefer to nil instead of releasing since you are also setting the ivar to nil and avoids dangling pointers.
When you create a property like this programmatically as opposed to from Interface Builder, you don't need to mark it with IBOutlet. In the cases where you do create a control using IB, you should nil all of your IBOutlet references in viewDidUnload. This is because your control could be deallocated along with the view if it wasn't retained. Referencing it afterwards will crash the app so it's a good practice to nil them, like this:
- (void)viewDidUnload {
[super viewDidUnload];
// Release any retained subviews of the main view.
// e.g. self.myOutlet = nil;
self.myIBLabel = nil;
}
Another common mistake that happens when using properties is to omit the 'self' part. If you do not use the self.myIBLabel notation, you are bipassing the getter and setter and working with the ivar directly. This will NOT retain/release the object.
You should release it in the dealloc method, although that depends how you're creating your class property.
If you release it in the method in which you create it, and then use it in some other part of your class (which, since you're making the UILabel a class wide property, I assume you are), you will get a bad access when you try to modify it later on. Note that if you're using a retained property you need to take that into account, in which case you might release the label (because you'll have created it and assigned it to your class property, which will retain it again).
Here's a typical example:
- (void) someMethod {
UILabel *myLabel = [[UILabel alloc] initWithFrame:myFrame];
self.textLabel = myLabel;
[myLabel release];
}
- (void) dealloc {
[textLabel release];
}
Related
Here's a pseudo class to demonstrate:
myView : UIView
- (void) init {
UIScrollView * scroller = [[UIScrollView alloc] init];
scroller.delegate = self;
[myView addSubview:scroller];
return self;
}
Under ARC, do I need to do anything else for memory to be freed correctly when all other references to myView have been removed? Will the reference between the two objects keep them sticking around forever without any intervention?
Does this change depending on whether or not scroller is a class property, or just a local variable declared in the function?
Just trying to find out why I've got multiple instances of some classes sticking around that shouldn't be there - semi related question, is there an easy way to find out why an object stays in memory (eg see all references to this object)?
iOS classes (like UIScrollView and UIWebView) already handle this correctly.
However, if you have your own delegate protocols and delegate properties, you need to make sure they are set to assign and not retain. To do this, wherever you declare a delegate (or whatever kind of protocol) you need to add the __unsafe_unretained tag thing:
#protocol FooBarDelegate {
//...
}
#interface Foo : Bar {
__unsafe_unretained id <FooBarDelegate> delegate;
}
#property (nonatomic, assign) id <FooBarDelegate> delegate;
Does this change depending on whether or not scroller is a class
property, or just a local variable declared in the function?
It doesn't. However keep in mind that adding something as a subview, the parent view will retain it automatically, regardless if you have a property or not.
I have several NSFetchedResultsControllers throughout my app, and in every view controller, I implement the respective delegate methods. However, instead of copying these delegate methods into every class that implements an NSFetchedResultsController, I thought I would just create a class that implements these delegate methods, and set all fetched results controller's delegate to point to that one class. Here's what I've tried, which doesn't work:
Since the delegate methods need to know which table view they are making changes to, I thought I would just create a separate delegate class for each fetched results controller, and send a pointer to the tableview for that class:
FetchedResultsDelegate *delegate = [[FetchedResultsDelegate alloc] initWithTableView:parentTableView];
self.fetchedResultsController.delegate=delegate;
[delegate release];
However, this causes a BAD_ACCESS crash, so this means that I probably shouldn't be doing what I'm doing above.
How can I create a single delegate class that handles all delegate requests for all my NSFetchedResultsControllers?
Edit: I was able to fix the problem by doing #property (nonatomic, retain) FetchedResultsDelegate *delegate; Is this ok? Some people are saying something about assign rather than retain?
Nothing is retaining your FetchedResultsDelegate as delegate properties are normally declared as assign. e.g. NSFetchedResultsController declares the delegate as
#property(nonatomic, assign) id <NSFetchedResultsControllerDelegate> delegate
Therefore you created the object and destroyed it straight away, but gave the fetchedResultsController a nasty dangling pointer.
To fix this you need a retain on the delegate. So in your UITableViewController class add a new property
// .h
#property (nonatomic, strong) id<NSFetchedResultsControllerDelegate> tableViewDelegate;
// .m
#synthesize tableViewDelegate = _tableViewDelegate;
then when you hook up you delegate just change your code to this
FetchedResultsDelegate *delegate = [[FetchedResultsDelegate alloc] initWithTableView:parentTableView];
self.fetchedResultsController.delegate = delegate;
self.tableViewDelegate = delegate;
[delegate release]; delegate = nil;
Don't forget
Release this new ivar in the dealloc
- (void)dealloc;
{
// ... other releases
[_tableViewDelegate release];
[super dealloc];
}
The use of assign is all about ownership semantics.
In this case your UITableViewController should own the tableView's delegate (e.g. strong/retain) as nothing else is.
The reason that the NSFetchedResultsController uses assign and not retain/strong is because there is a good chance that the object that created it would act as the delegate, which would result in both objects owning each other (both having a retain held on each other), which causes a retain cycle
My object is not getting released from memory so I override retain method and put a breakpoint in to see where in code it gets retained.
Every time the object is referenced using a property accessor the retain method is called. Why would this be happening?
color = self.myobject.color
calls retain.
The synthesized property accessor for retained properties looks something like this:
- (UIColor *)color
{
return [[_color retain] autorelease];
}
Therefore, your retain method is called, but it's balanced with an autorelease.
See this code snippet in the Objective-C Programming Language Guide for an example of how a synthesized accessor might look (the locking part doesn't apply in the nonatomic case, but the retain-autorelease is the same).
Because you probably declared your property as retain or copy:
#property (nonatomic, retain) MyObject* myobject;
If you #synthesize that, the compiler will generate code that looks more or less like:
- (void) setMyobject: (MyObject *) value
{
if (value != myobject)
{
[myobject release];
myobject = value;
}
}
Each time you assign to self.myobject, that method is invoked with the new object as value parameter. It should release the old object, but the last object added is retained. You'll have to release it in your dealloc. And you should release what you allocated, so the pattern is:
MyObject *myObj = [[MyObject alloc] init];
self.myobject = myObj;
[myObj release];
Items returned from a method are usually autoreleased, so you should not release those:
MyObject *myObj = [someOtherObject someMethod: 17];
self.myobject = myObj;
// Do NOT release myObj!
Update
See #omz's explanation. I misread and was talking about the setter. Your getter does a retain too, but that is immediately paired with an autorelease. Since you only log the retains, it only looks as if you have leaks.
I'm new in iPhone development and after reading Apple documentation and several posts here I still have some doubts about memory management. Please, supouse this basic class:
//MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : NSObject {
NSString *varA;
OtherClass *varB;
NSString *varC;
NSString *varD;
}
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *varA;
#property (nonatomic, retain) OtherClass *varB;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *varC;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *varD;
+ (id) initClass:(NSString *)desc;
- (void) method1:(NSString *)desc;
#end
With this implementation:
//MyClass.m
#implementation MyClass
#synthesize varA;
#synthesize varB;
#synthesize varC;
#synthesize varD;
+ (id) initClass:(NSString *)desc{
self = [super init];
if( self ){
self.varA = [NSString stringWithString:desc];
self.varB = [OtherClass initClassWithAutorelease:#"a description"]; //this class return an autoreleased object
[varB aMethod:#"something"];
}
return self;
}
- (void) dealloc{
[varB aMethod:#"something"];
[varA release];
[varB release];
[super dealloc];
}
- (void) method1:(NSString *)aString{
self.varC = aString;
self.varA = [NSString stringWithString:#"new value"];
[varB aMethod:#"something"];
}
#end
At this point what I have in mind is that the instance variables with #property have to be use without self. in the init method of the class and release them without self. in the dealloc, in other methods it is convinient to use self. for all cases. So here are my doubts:
First, I suppose that if I use self.varA= in the init method the retain counter increase so I have to release it in the dealloc method, even if the object has not been created with alloc, copy or new. Or I can use only varA= in the init and I will not need to do a release. For other class methods it's better to use the setter/getter so I can use self.varA=, ... appendString:self.varA ... or ...=self.varA without problem. Is all this correct?
Second doubt, what is best in terms of memory management and simplicity, to assign to an instance variable an object in the init method with or without autorelease? If I assign to it one without autorelease I will have to dealloc it but if I use autorelease the variable could be released before I want (like the autoreleased self.varB = [OtherClass... that will be used in the dealloc method whenever the MyClass is released).
Third, do I have to dealloc all my instance variables even if I don't use them in the init method but I could use them (read/write) in other methods of the same class? (Like varC in method1 or varD that is not used).
Fourth, do I need to take care of varA after assigning the new value in method1 if I did it well in the initClass and dealloc methods? In other words, will this generate memory leaks?
Fifth, if I declare with autorelease this class like an instance variable in a ViewController (MyClass *c; ... c = [[[MyClass alloc] initClass:#"description"] autorelease];) and I set the #property, do I have to do a release if I use it with c=... instead of self.c=...? As far as I know the behavior is the same than in my example so I should use the setter/get method in the viewDidLoad or viewWillAppear and released it in the dealloc without self..
Sixth and last one, for a instance variable is varA the same that self->varA?
Thanks...
At this point what I have in mind is that the instance variables with #property have to be use without self in the init method of the class and release them without self in the dealloc
This is completely the opposite of what is true. #property just makes the variable public outside of the class. If you have another class call that object, it will look in the header file (.h file), if it doesn't see a variable by that name, it will throw a warning during compile, and an error during runtime. When using properties with synthesize (btw, your synthesize can be all on one line, doesn't really matter though, ex: #synthesize varA, varB, varC;), using self automatically retains and keeps a retain count.
- (id) initClass:(NSString *)desc{ //Note the "-" instead of the "+" here, this is an instance method, not a class method
self = [super init];
if( self ){
[self setVarA:[NSString stringWithString:desc]];
[self setVarB:[OtherClass initClassWithAutorelease:#"a description"]];
[varB aMethod:#"something"];
}
return self;
}
in other methods it is convinient to use self for all cases.
Very untrue as well. If anything, this adds another call to the call stack and makes the execution slower (by one operation, but still, one more than needed). Consider this example:
[[self varA] doStuff:#"OMG"];
versus
[varA doStuff:#"OMG"];
The 2nd one will only access one pointer, where as the first one will have to access 2 pointers to get to the same result.
First, I suppose that if I use self.varA= in the init method the retain counter increase so I have to release it in the dealloc method, even if the object has not been created with alloc, copy or new.
Untrue. The class handles the first retain, and because of this, it handles a release as well. When your class is released, it sends a release to everything it has a retain on. If you do a release in your dealloc, this will actually decrease its retain count to -1 and create a memory error. If you set the property with self.varA = someObject, then it will give it a release when your class is dealloced. If you did self.varA = [someObject retain], then you would have to do a release in the dealloc.
Or I can use only varA= in the init and I will not need to do a release.
Kinda true, you would not need to do a release because you did not do a retain. But if something else lowers the retain count to 0 on this object, there is nothing in your class that forces the object to stay alive, and it will be freed, and if you reference it, memory error.
For other class methods it's better to use the setter/getter so I can use self.varA=, ... appendString:self.varA ... or ...=self.varA without problem. Is all this correct?
No, see why above. Only use [self setVarA:newValue] if you are changing the instance of the object, the synthesize will handle the rest. Otherwise just use [varA value] to get what ever data you need.
Second doubt, what is best in terms of memory management and simplicity, to assign to an instance variable an object in the init method with or without autorelease? If I assign to it one without autorelease I will have to dealloc it but if I use autorelease the variable could be released before I want (like the autoreleased self.varB = [OtherClass... that will be used in the dealloc method whenever the MyClass is released).
If you are creating a new object in init, autorelease it. You will have to release it in your dealloc if you do just a regular alloc init. The variable will not be released before you want it because of the retain you do on it through the property. EX
-(id) init {
self = [super init];
if(self) {
[self setVarA:[[[NSString alloc] init] autorelease]]; //Sets a new instance of NSString, autoreleased
}
return self;
}
This is correct, you do not need to do anything in your dealloc. You are creating an object with a retain count of 2 (one for the alloc you did here, and 1 for the retain you do when the synthesize sets the value in your class). Now, if it autoreleases, its retain will only go down by 1, and you will still have the retain from your property, so it will not release before your class releases
-(id) init {
self = [super init];
if(self) {
[self setVarA:[[NSString alloc] init]]; //Sets a new instance of NSString
}
return self;
}
Again, you create an object with a retain count of 2. You will need to do a [varA release] in the dealloc to knock the retain count down enough for it to be released when your class is released.
Third, do I have to dealloc all my instance variables even if I don't use them in the init method but I could use them (read/write) in other methods of the same class? (Like varC in method1 or varD that is not used).
No, you do not want to send releases to freed objects. You really should never use a dealloc in my opinion, but if you decide you want to for sure, then the worst case is to check to see if the object is null, and if its not, then release it
if(varD != null)
[[self varD] release];
Fourth, do I need to take care of varA after assigning the new value in method1 if I did it well in the initClass and dealloc methods? In other words, will this generate memory leaks?
No memory leaks from NSString. This method returns an autoreleased object. When you assign a new value to [self varA], it will release the old object, and retain the new object.
Fifth, if I declare with autorelease this class like an instance variable in a ViewController (MyClass *c; ... c = [[[MyClass alloc] initClass:#"description"] autorelease];) and I set the #property, do I have to do a release if I use it with c=... instead of self.c=...? As far as I know the behavior is the same than in my example so I should use the setter/get method in the viewDidLoad or viewWillAppear and released it in the dealloc without self..
You don't need a release in either scenario. The alloc increases the release count by 1, the autorelease will decrease it to 0. If you did self.c, that would increase it to 2, and decrease to 0 (one decrease from autorelease, and one from the property) when your class is released. You do not need to do ANYTHING in dealloc.
Sixth and last one, for a instance variable is varA the same that self->varA?
Yes, they point to the same location in memory.
when ever you write "alloc, retain, copy, new" you are responsible for releasing them in the dealloc method. ex
.h file
NSString * string;
#property (nonatomic, retain)NString * string;
.m file
#synthesize string;
-(void)dealloc{
[string release];
}
hope that helps :D
I've been reading all day about why views should be set to nil in viewDidUnload and released in dealloc. All the articles keep on repeating the same thing. Yes, I know the behind-the-scene instructions are different, but what are the practical differences?
var = nil
If var is a retained propery, reclaim memory the old object var pointed to.
Set var to nil.
[var release]
Reclaim memory var points to.
var now points to nothing, which is equivalent to nil
To me, both ways of reclaiming memory have the same end result. So why do one over the other? Every book out there tells me to set to nil in viewDidUnload and release in dealloc. Someone should point out the bad things that would happen if a view was released in viewDidUnload and nilled in dealloc.
.h
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
#interface DisclosureDetailController : UIViewController {
UILabel* label;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet UILabel* label;
#end
.m
#import "DisclosureDetailController.h"
#implementation DisclosureDetailController
#synthesize label;
- (void)viewDidUnload {
self.label = nil;
// OR [self.label release];
[super viewDidUnload];
}
- (void)dealloc {
[self.label release];
// OR self.label = nil;
}
First things first, the line
[self.label release];
is absolutely wrong regardless of where you call it. You should never call -release on the results of property access. This is exactly the same as writing [[self label] release], which I hope you can recognize as being wrong.
Your code sample should look like the following:
- (void)viewDidUnload {
self.label = nil;
[super viewDidUnload];
}
- (void)dealloc {
[label release];
[super dealloc];
}
If we look at -viewDidUnload first, it's pretty simple. self.label = nil; is correct. Similarly correct would be [self setLabel:nil];. And while not quite as good, it would also be acceptable to write [label release], label = nil;. This last form isn't as good because it bypasses the setter method, which may be doing more things than simply releasing the property (e.g. it may maintain internal state that cares about the value of the property). It also bypasses KVO notifications.
The real question here is what you do in -dealloc. Many people suggest that it's perfectly fine to say self.label = nil;, and practically speaking, this will work most of the time. The problem is, the rest of the time it will cause subtle bugs. There are two things that calling the setter can do. The first is it can cause side effects in your class if the setter method is implemented manually (even if you're not implementing the setter yourself, a subclass might). The second is it can broadcast KVO notifications. Neither of these things are desired when you're in -dealloc. By releasing the ivar directly, as in [label release];, you avoid both the potential side effects and the KVO notifications.
the practical differences are as follows.
Setting the property to nil by using the property accessor will let the synthesized method take hold of your new nil property after releasing the existing property.
// we will take for granted that you synthesize this property
#property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet UILabel* label;
we will use the property accessor and set it to nil.
//This will in actuality set the new value of nil to the label variable after
//releasing the existing label that it had a retain count on.
self.label = nil;
next we will release it directly
//This line on the other hand will merely release the label directly.
//As soon as the label is deallocated you will have a handle to an invalid object.
//(memory space that used to be your label)
[label release];
now we will show a simplified version of the property accessor. (not to be used literally)
//Simply put the following is an pseudo equivalent of the property setter.
[label release]
label = nil;
the main point here being that the property accessor handles releasing the label that it retained. and setting it to whatever you hand it (in this case being nil)
therefore adding the following code
label = nil;
without releasing the retained object would cause a memory leak and you would have a retain count on a label you no longer have a pointer to.
Note:
another thing to take into account.
Any pointer that is nil. will be able
to accept messages. And in return they
will reply with nil. An object that
was released on the other hand, as
soon as that memory is deallocated
your message to it will most likely
throw an error. the outcome is
unpredictable. This is a good reason
for setting your properties to nil.
Not only will it handle the release
for the object that it is holding. but
it will also give you an object you
can safely message to without blowing
up.
A good point #WaltSellers
Accessing a variable -- regardless if its the property accessor or instance variable. -- After it has been released completely. Will result in "Undefined" actions. This means that the access may act ok, or it may ruin other parts of the app, or alternatively it may just blow up real fast and terminate the offending app. Basically setting the variable to nil after releasing will enable you to get past that error.
A separate tip from me
to overcome the misconception of property accessor and instance variable I just #synthesize and tell it to set a variable name.
#synthesize label = _label;
doing this allows me to differentiate self.label from its instance variable. as no longer can you access the label variable directly without the preceding _