Consider I have a property named sampleObject.
In dealloc method, which should be the best way to manage memory?
Option 1:
self.sampleObject = nil; //This will release the sampleObject and set it to nil
This is equivalent to
[sampleObject release];
sampleObject = nil;
Option 2:
Explicitly releasing an object and setting it to nil
[sampleObject release];
sampleObject = nil;
In my opinion, both would achieve the same results? Please Share your views.
Regards,
Krishnan
In the 'dealloc' method you should 'release' the ivar directly and set it to nil.
You do so directly because that avoids executing any custom setter code that may exist in a subclass.
The setting to nil isn't strictly necessary, but it costs virtually nothing to do and you'll be happy you did so during debugging in that it eliminates a dangling pointer.
in a dealloc method, the class is never used again so setting retained resources/properties to nil is just not required. Sending release is the best option and avoids unnecessary code.
Going through the property setter does have a small overhead over directly sending the release message. Thus, for synthesized properties, it's better to send release.
Of course, there are cases where you have to call the property setter, if the setter logic is more complex (for example, the property is backed by multiple variables and the setter decomposes the value and cleans up the old one). This is not as common scenario, though.
And since you are deallocating your object, there's no need to set the backing variable explicitly to nil after you release it.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When to use self on class properties?
Difference between self.ivar and ivar?
I know that when you do
self.array = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
this means that I am calling the setter method.
However, I can also do:
array = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
Which is assigning the ivar directly, no setters is called (I assume).
Sometimes both cases will have the same effect, sometimes not.
So what is the crucial main difference between doing one over the other?
Can someone explain this clearly..
If array property is retained then 1st one will cause a memory leak. In that case you are gaining ownership twice in one line, one via alloc and one via retained property. So one release is not enough.
And in 2nd one if you release immediately after alloc then you loose the ownership immediately as you have not retained array in that case.
The crucial difference is that the setter can have additional side effects — such as retaining the argument or issuing KVO notifications — while a simple assignment can't.
The Objective-C Programming Language tells you to use direct access in the initializer:
There are several constraints and conventions that apply to
initializer methods that do not apply to other methods:
If you set the value of an instance variable, you typically do so
using direct assignment rather than using an accessor method. Direct
assignment avoids the possibility of triggering unwanted side effects
in the accessors.
and in dealloc:
Typically in a dealloc method you should release object instance
variables directly (rather than invoking a set accessor and passing
nil as the parameter), as illustrated in this example:
- (void)dealloc {
[property release];
[super dealloc];
}
to avoid, as Chuck said, side effects like KVO notifications.
Example: in my code I have a variable that triggers the preloading of related data in advance. Sometimes I release it or set it to nil to get rid of the variable, which means I don't need to preload anything, so I use direct access. This example is rarely the case, but it doesn't cost you anything to follow this convention.
Let's say I assign an instance var with an object given in parameter. I don't know what this object is, so I don't want to retain it. But, that reference I have to that object can be invalid at some time, for example if the object is released, or is about to be released (autorelease pool). So, inside my class instance, can I know if the reference I have kept into an instance variable can be used without any risk of crash?
You should retain it and release it when you no longer need it. That is exactly what retain is for.
Kris Van Bael is right, no matter if you know what the object is, if you want to have ownership of it (if it's up to you to ensure that the object is alive), you must retain it. Release it when you don't need it, and set the reference to NIL (for security).
But their is an exception !
Sometimes you don't want to have ownership, the most common example is the delegate.
You don't want to retain your delegate, because it probably already retains you, and if both objects release each other in the dealloc method, your app will leak.
But in this case, you shouldn't care about the delegate being deallocated : the delegate should set your "delegate" property to nil in it's dealloc method.
So
if you have ownership on the object : retain, no choice !
if the object has ownership on you : assign, and don't worry !
This approach is really dangerous. If your app is not able to track object life cycle, then you must change the code in order to have control of this.
Anyway answering to your question: you can protect your instance variable by extra retaining it in your class and then releasing it when it is no more needed. So you don't need to do the check you are asking for.
You should set any released reference to NIL and check for NIL.
The title says everything!
In Objective-C, what's the difference between self.propertyName vs. propertyName?
self.propertyName is sending the object a message, asking it for the value of propertyName, which means it may go through a getter/setter, etc. propertyName is directly accessing the ivar, bypassing any getter/setter. Here's an article going into it in rather more detail.
self.propertyName increse the retain count by one if you have specified the propertyName as retain in property declaration
propertyName will not increase the retain count an could lead to the crash of application.
e. g. ,
#property (nonatomic,retain) NSString* propertyName;
lets say you have nameProperty NSString object.
Below increase the retain count by 1 and you could use self.propertyName and call release.
self.propertyName = nameProperty;
[nameProperty release];
Below does'nt increase the retain count so if you use propertyName in your application it will result in crashing of your application.
propertyName = nameProperty;
[nameProperty release];
Any further use of propertyName will result in crash.
self. runs through your likely synthesized accessor methods if you are using properties
ie self.propertyName = newName is the same as [self setPropertyName:newName]
This becomes important for memory management as propertyName = newName would cause you to loose reference to the previous contents of propertyName
If you call self, you can be sure you're calling the class/object that owns the property.
You may find this useful too:
Assigning to self in Objective-C
dot notation is turned into a method call by the compiler. This means that there is extra work at run time for executing this method call, like copying something from and to the stack memory and executing a jump in machine code.
the instance variable by itself is faster because it is essentially just a memory address or scalar value (like int).
One would prefer the self.something notation when you want or need an extra layer to do something. Like retain an object that is passed in or lazily instantiate an object on the first time you need it.
Setting the value of the property does just that - it sets the value of the property directly without going through any accessors or synthesized accessors.
By calling the accessor through self you are going through the accessors. For properties that have been declared with retain or copy it will retain or copy the value that is passed in. For non objecte properties, the usual declaration is assign which means that there is no memory management applied to those iVars.
You see both types of calls - but it is preferred to use the direct method in initialisers and the dealloc method, because calls to self are discouraged in these methods.
If you have declared and synthesized the property, the call to self also generates the KVO notifications for changes in that variable. This saves you having to write the willChangeValueForKey: and didChangeValueForKey: methods.
I've read that it's bad to use self.ivar = (convenience method) in and object's 'init' method, as this messes with inheritance.
However, if you know you're not going to subclass your object, is it ok to use the self keyword assignment?
i.e. self.iVar = [Object objectConvenienceMethod];
The reason I ask is this. I create a new object with its own init method, and in that method, I perform various initial assignments. Since I don't use the self keyword, I assign them directly to the iVars, and therefore use the alloc methods rather than the convenience methods. I.e.
iVar = [[Object alloc] init];
Or if I use a convenience method, I retain it. I.e.
iVar = [[Object convenienceMethod]retain]
But... when I run my program with the memory leak tool on, all of these assignments are identified as memory leaks.
If I can use the self keyword plus a convenience method instead of alloc-init, then this would avoid the problem.
If I choose to use the alloc-init approach though, where am I supposed to release the iVars?? Just in dealloc?
Thanks for your help :)
Michael
No, because it isn't only subclass behavior you need to take into account — superclass implementations and even the behavior of code generated by the framework (e.g. synthesized accessors and the black magic used to implement KVO) can also cause trouble. It will probably be OK, but that's still a significant chance of being not-OK. All in all, it's best just to follow Apple's recommendation and assign directly.
Assigning to ivars in init shouldn't be reported as leaks in a properly functioning program. If you're seeing that, there's some other problem that you need to address. Try reducing the problem to a minimal case that we can try out and ask about that — then we can tell what's wrong.
If you alloc or retain them in your class's init method, you should release them in the corresponding dealloc method.
I am thinking your "enclosing" class is not being released, and hence its dealloc method is not being called resulting in your iVars not being released.
Wondering if someone with experience could possibly explain this a bit more. I have seen examples of...
[view release];
view = nil;
....inside the (void) dealloc.
What is the difference and is one better then the other?
What is the best way?
When doing retainCount testing I have personally seen nil drop a count from 3 to 0 for me, but release only drops it from 3 to 2.
What you have seen is probably these:
1) [foo release];
2) self.bar = nil;
3) baz = nil;
Is releasing the object, accessing it through the instance variable foo. The instance variable will become a dangling pointer. This is the preferred method in dealloc.
Is assigning nil to a property bar on self, that will in practice release whatever the property is currently retaining. Do this if you have a custom setter for the property, that is supposed to cleanup more than just the instance variable backing the property.
Will overwrite the pointer baz referencing the object with nil, but not release the object. The result is a memory leak. Never do this.
If you are not using properties (where self.property = nil will also release an object) then you should ALWAYS follow a release by code that sets the reference to nil, as you outlined:
[view release]; view = nil;
The reason is that it avoids he possibility that a reference can be used that is invalid. It's rare and hard to have happen, but it can occur.
This is even more important in viewDidUnload, if you are freeing IBOutlets - that's a more realistic scenario where a reference might go bad because of memory warnings unloading a view, and then some other code in the view trying to make use of a reference before the view is reloaded.
Basically it's just good practice and it will save you a crash at some point if you make it a habit to do this.
#bbullis22 you have seen the restain count drop from 3 to 0 because you set the reference to nil. then you asked for the retaincount of 'nil' which is zero. however, the object that used to be referenced has the same retain count - 1 (due to setting the reference to nil).
using release, the reference still references the same object, so that's why you see the retain count drop from 3 to 2 in this situation.
As far as usage inside your code, in your dealloc you don't need the assignment to the property, releasing is all you need to do.
- (void)dealloc {
[myProperty release]; // don't need to assign since you won't have the object soon anyway
[super dealloc];
}
I think using both is kind of safety net. With only release in place you could run in problem if you screwed reference counting management. You would release an object, giving its memory back to system but pointer would be still valid.
With nil you are guaranteed that program will not crash since sending message to nil does nothing.