I've been experiencing memory problems (the app will run for a couple of iterations, then receive low memory warning and finally be terminated) while working with NSInvocationOperation in a method called repeatedly by a NSTimer.
The method will be called every 1/4 of a second and I've narrowed down the source of the problem to the following test lines:
-(void)methodCalledByTimer {
NSInvocationOperation *o = [NSInvocationOperation alloc];
[o release];
}
Uncommenting these two lines (to produce an empty method) will prevent the memory problems from arising. Once they are in, memory usage will increase quite fast and finally the app will be terminated.
Can anybody explain what I'm doing wrong here? Do I have to do anything else to make sure, that the NSInvocationOperation object will be properly released?
Thank you very much in avance for your help.
Kind regards,
Michael.
A possible solution might be to just store your NSInvocationOperation somewhere else instead of creating and releasing one each time methodCalledByTimer is called.
I was having problems with NSCalendar where I would create and release one thousands of times to be used for some date work, but I then just created one calendar attached to the appDelegate and accessed that every time. Fixed a ton of memory leaks, and it's probably better than creating a new object every single time.
I believe the problem lies in how you allocate without initializing. The first of the buggy lines should read:
NSInvocationOperation *o = [[NSInvocationOperation alloc] initWithTarget:yourTarget selector:#selector(yourSelector) object:yourObjectOrNil];
Regarding mjdth's answer, I believe you should not attempt to reuse an invocation operation. From the documentation of NSOperation (the superclass of NSInvoationOperation):
"An operation object is a single-shot object—that is, it executes its task once and cannot be used to execute it again."
Furthermore, no Objective-C object should ever be initialized twice.
Related
I've been working on the same project for some time now, and my understanding of Objective-C and Cocoa has evolved a little through time. Looking back in some parts of my code, I see this:
__weak ASIFormDataRequest *serverQueueRequest = [ASIFormDataRequest requestWithURL:url2];
[serverQueueRequest setCompletionBlock:^{
NSLog(#"%#", serverQueueRequest.responseString);
}];
[serverQueueRequest startAsynchronous];
And that's how I've been processing all my server requests. I think I did that to suppress a warning, namely that "capturing request in block may lead to a retain cycle". So I made it weak, and that seems to have solved all my issues. I haven't noticed any real problems with this.
However, looking at the code now, it seems a little odd that it works. When I declare the request as __weak, shouldn't it immediately zero out since no one is holding on to it? Why does this code work?
Also, although this code works, I just recently discovered a case where it doesn't: when calling the method that contains this code several times in succession, say 5 times within the span of a second, 3/5 requests will have a NULL response. This is consistently the case. Removing the __weak qualifier solves this issue. What's the explanation for that?
And so finally, what is the correct way to declare a local request like this?
Update: According to this question, the correct way to do it is like so:
ASIHTTPRequest *_request = [[ASIHTTPRequest alloc] initWithURL:...
__weak ASIHTTPRequest *request = _request;
Edit: actually the fix above does not fix the issue where calling the code 5 times results in NULL responses. That problem still exists. The only way that problem goes away is by capturing the request strongly and not using any qualifiers.
Now the question is why my original code still worked..
Quoting from Apple's Programming with ARC Release Notes:
Take care when using __weak variables on the stack. Consider the
following example:
NSString __weak *string = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"First Name: %#", [self firstName]];
NSLog(#"string:%#", string);
Although string is used after the initial assignment,
there is no other strong reference to the string object at the time of
assignment; it is therefore immediately deallocated. The log statement
shows that string has a null value.
The obj C stack will always retain pointers in scope. _weak does not mean release right now it means release when the stack goes out of scope.
When you declare a var and then make calls on it in the same stack scope it will not be released until after (minimally) the stack is cleaned up.
Blocks extend method scope since they imply potentially asynchronous behavior and they utilize the stack that was present when they were invoked.
I believe it is because you are running the weak variable in a block. The block holds onto the state of the weak variable which In turn causes it to work. I'm betting much work on the variable once the block is complete may cause issues.
My guess in why it fails if you run it many times is because the asynchronous asi call stack gets to high and bombs. I've seen this before and if you are very patient you can catch the asi blow up in the debugger.
I have seen a similar line of code floating about in Apples code:
(void)[[URLRequest alloc] initializeRequestWithValues:postBody url:verifySession httpHeader:nil delegate:self];
URLRequest is my own custom class. I didn't write this and I think the guy that did just grabbed it from Apple's example. To me this should leak and when I test it I'm pretty sure it leaks 16 bytes. Would it? I know how to fix it if it does but wasn't sure as it was taken from Apple's code.
EDIT: The problem was with the SDK, not the above code. See answer below for further details
Thought I might update this as after further testing and the release of iOS4 it has changed.
The above code doesn't leak and the memory footprint of the App returns to normal even after 200 iterations of the code. The leak did occur in iOS3 but was very small, in iOS4 it has completely disappeared both in simulator and device.
Some might wonder why you would want to implement this code but it works and make sense when dealing with lots of different NSURLConnections throughout your code running simultaneously.
Yes. This is a leak, which can easily be fixed by adding an autorelease:
[[[URLRequest alloc] initializeRequestWithValues:postBody url:verifySession httpHeader:nil delegate:self] autorelease];
Perhaps a better fix would be to create a class function that does this:
#interface URLRequest
{
// ...
}
// ...
+ (void) requestWithValues:/* ... */
// ...
#end
Then you could simply use [URLRequest requestWithValues: /* ... */] without invoking alloc.
Not at all sure what this code is supposed to accomplish. It does appear to break every single convention about initialization methods. What's the point of returning a void pointer from an initialization method? The entire point of an initialization method is to return an object. Where in Apple's code examples did you see this?
Having said that, I don't see why it would leak. Since it doesn't return an object there is nothing to leak external to the method. There might be something internally that leaks.
Edit:
It basically does an NSURLConnection.
Because we are submitting a lot of
forms with a lot of different values
we put it in an external class. All
the delegate methods like
didFailWithError: are in NSURLRequest
and connectionDidFinishLoading just
passes the data to its delegate. So it
doesn't really need to return anything
as it is done through a delegate
method.
Yeah, you need to redesign this. At present, this method is just a disaster waiting to happening. If nothing else, everyone else looking at this code will be utterly confused about what you are doing.
If you have no need to retain the object created, then move its allocation and clean up entirely within a method. Change the method name prefix from "initialize" to something like "setup", "configure", "acquire" etc so the name doesn't imply that it creates and returns and object.
If you need a one shot instance of a particular class, use a class method like Michael Aaron Safyan suggested (again without initialize in the name.) The class method should internally initialize an instance, perform the operations needed, return the data to wherever, then dealloc the instance.
That way, you won't have to worry about leaks and everyone else who may read your code (including yourself months down the road) will immediately understand what the code does.
I ran a few stress tests on my Iphone app. The results are below. I am wondering if I should be concerned and, if so, what I might do about it.
I set up a timer to fire once a second. Whenever the timer fired, the app requested some XML data from the server. When the data arrived, the app then parsed the data and redisplayed the affected table view.On several trials, the app averaged about 500 times through the loop before crashing.
I then removed the parsing and redisplay steps from the above loop. Now it could go about 800 times.
I set up a loop to repeatedly redisplay the table view, without downloading anything. As soon as one redisplay was completed, the next one began. After 2601 loops, the app crashed.
All of the above numbers are larger than what a user is likely to do.
Also, my app never lasts long at all when I try to run it on the device under instruments. So I can't get useful data that way. (But without instruments it lasts quite a while, as detailed above.)
I would say you need to be very concerned. The first rule of programming is that the user will never do what you expect.
Things to consider:
Accessor methods. Use them. Set up
properties for all attributes and
always access them with the
appropriate getter/setter methods:
.
object.property = some_other_object; -OR-
[object setProperty:some_other_object];
and
object = some_other_object.some_property;
object = [some_other_object some_property];
Resist the temptation to do things like:
property = some_other_object;
[property retain];
Do you get output from ObjectAlloc?
There are 4 tools from memory leaks,
performance and object allocations.
Are none of them loading?
What do you get when the app crashes?
EXEC_BAD_ACCESS or some other error?
Balanced retain (either alloc or
copy) and release. It is a good idea
to keep every alloc/copy balanced
with a release/autorelease in the
same method. If you use your
accessors ALL OF THE TIME, the need
for doing manual releases is seldom.
Autorelease will often hide a real
problem. It is possible Autorelease
can mask some tricky allocation
issues. Double check your use of
autorelease.
EDITED (Added based on your fault code)
Based on your above answer of "Program received signal: 0". This indicates that you have run out of memory. I would start by looking for instances that your code does something like:
myObject = [[MyClass alloc] init];
[someMutableArray addObject:myObject];
and you do not have the "release" when you put the new object into the array. If this array then gets released, the object, myObject, will become an orphan but hang around in memory anyway. The easy way to do this is to grep for all of your "alloc"/"copy" messages. Except under exceedingly rare conditions, there should be a paired "release""/autorelease" in the same function. More often than not, the above should be:
myObject = [[[MyClass alloc] init] autorelease];
[someMutableArray addObject:myObject];
I am a bit confused in the following two ways of initialisations.....
Way 1:
- (void) myMethod{
NSArray *myArray = [[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:obj1,obj1,nil];
[self setClassArray:myArray];
[myArray release];
}
Way 2:
- (void) myMethod{
NSArray *myArray = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:obj1,obj2,nil];
[self setClassArray:myArray];
}
In way 1, I have used a alloc init method which is a instance method and as I have used an alloc statement I have to release the array myself.
In way 2, I have used a static method to initialze the array and as there is no alloc statement used I dont need to release the memory the system will take care of that.
Way 1, is time consuming and can to lead to memory leaks if not taken care
Way 2, is faster in writing and you dont need to take care of memory leaks
But , still i have seen the way1 used in standard source codes more often than the way2. I have no idea why people do this or if I am wrong at some place.
Answers and comments are oppenly invited. Please suggest the best programming practice.
Your second example uses a convenience constructor, which returns an autoreleased object. The question, then, is whether it's better to use autorelease or alloc/release. mmalc's answer on this StackOverflow thread explains the drawbacks of autoreleasing objects. (Basically, use alloc/release whenever possible.)
Also (this may be stating the obvious), some classes might not have convenience constructors, so when working with these you'd have to use alloc/release.
as i know,
[NSArray arrayWithObjects:obj1,obj2,nil];
returns an autoreleased object, smth like
[[[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:obj1,obj1,nil] autorelease];
and I prefer not to manage memory with autorelease pool. maybe it's just a prejudice))
When using method 2 (autorelease) the object is released when the operating system feels it has no references.
But when using the manual release, as you typed in your code, you can release directly, or whenever you need to.
I usually prefer the second way, and if I recall correctly, this is also what the Apple docs reccommend (use autorelease where possible).
In Way 1 the memory gets released faster, so if you have a method that gets called in a loop or recursively, using autorelease may accumulate much memory, whereas alloc/retain will keep your memory footprint low.
On the other hand I assume that using autorelease is more efficient, because the autorelease pool can release a big chunk of memory at once, instead of small chunks again and again. Tough I may be wrong here.
I have been looking through the questions asked on StackOverflow, but there are so many about memory management in Objective-C that I couldn't find the answer I was looking for.
The question is if it is ok (and recommnded) to call autorelease before adding a newly created object to a collection (like NSMutableArray)? Or should I release it explicitly after adding it. (I know NSMutableArray willl retain the object)
This illustrates my question:
Scenario A (autorelease):
- (void) add {
// array is an instance of NSMutableArray
MyClass *obj = [[[MyClass alloc] init] autorelease];
[array addObject:obj];
}
Scenario B (explicit release):
- (void) add {
// array is an instance of NSMutableArray
MyClass *obj = [[MyClass alloc] init];
[array addObject:obj];
[obj release];
}
I assume both are correct, but I am not sure, and I sure don't know what the preffered way is.
Can the Objective-C gurus shed some light on this?
IMHO, which way is 'right' is a matter of preference. I don't disagree with the responders who advocate not using autorelease, but my preference is to use autorelease unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to. I'll list my reasons and you can decide whether or not their appropriate to your style of programming.
As Chuck pointed out, there is a semi-urban legend that there's some kind of overhead to using autorelease pools. This could not be further from the truth, and this comes from countless hours spent using Shark.app to squeeze the last bit of performance out of code. Trying to optimize for this is deep in to "premature optimization" territory. If, and only if, Shark.app gives you hard data that this might be a problem should you even consider looking in to it.
As others pointed out, an autoreleased object is "released at some later point". This means they linger around, taking up memory, until that "later point" rolls around. For "most" cases, this is at the bottom of an event processing pass before the run loop sleeps until the next event (timer, user clicking something, etc).
Occasionally, though, you will need to get rid of those temporary objects sooner, rather than later. For example, you need to process a huge, multi-megabyte file, or tens of thousands of rows from a database. When this happens, you'll need to place a NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; at a well chosen point, followed by a [pool release]; at the bottom. This almost always happens in some kind of "loop batch processing", so it's usually at the start and bottom of some critical loop. Again, this should be evidence based, not hunch based. Instrument.app's ObjectAlloc is what you use to find these trouble spots.
The main reason why I prefer autorelease to release, though, is that it is much easier to write leak-free programs. In short, if you choose to go the release route, you need to guarantee that release is eventually sent to obj, under all circumstances. While this seems like it might be simple, it is actually surprisingly hard to do in practice. Take your example, for instance:
// array is an instance of NSMutableArray
MyClass *obj = [[MyClass alloc] init];
[array addObject:obj];
// Assume a few more lines of work....
[obj release];
Now imagine that for some reason, something, somewhere, subtly violates your assumption that array is mutable, maybe as the result of using some method to process the results, and the returned array containing the processed results was created as a NSArray. When you send addObject: to that immutable NSArray, an exception will be thrown, and you will never send obj its release message. Or maybe something goes wrong somewhere between when obj was allocd and the required call to release, like you check some condition and return() immediately by mistake because it slipped your mind that that call to release later on must take place.
You have just leaked an object. And probably signed yourself up to several days of trying to find out where and why it is your leaking it. From experience, you will spend many hours looking at that code above, convinced that it could not possibly be the source of the leak because you very clearly send obj a release. Then, after several days, you will experience what can only be described as a religious epiphany as you are enlightened to the cause of the problem.
Consider the autorelease case:
// array is an instance of NSMutableArray
MyClass *obj = [[[MyClass alloc] init] autorelease];
[array addObject:obj];
// Assume a few more lines of work....
Now, it no longer matters what happens because it's virtually impossible to leak obj accidentally, even under extremely unusual or exceptional corner cases.
Both are correct and will work as you're expecting them to.
I personally prefer to use the latter method, but only because I like to be explicit about when objects get released. By autoreleasing the object, all we're doing is saying "this object will get released at some arbitrary point in the future." That means you can put the autoreleased object into the array, destroy the array, and the object might (probably) still exist.
With the latter method, the object would get destroyed immediately with the array (providing that nothing else has come along and retained it in the meantime). If I'm in a memory-constrained environment (say, the iPhone) where I need to be careful about how much memory I'm using, I'll use the latter method just so I don't have so many objects lingering in an NSAutoreleasePool somewhere. If memory usage isn't a big concern for you (and it usually isn't for me, either), then either method is totally acceptable.
They are both correct but B may be preferred because it has no overhead at all. Autorelease causes the autorelease pool to take charge of the object. This has a very slight overhead which, of course, gets multiplied by the number of objects involved.
So with one object A and B are more or less the same but definitely don't use A in scenarios with lots of objects to add to the array.
In different situations autoreleasing may delay and accumulate the freeing of many objects at the end of the thread. This may be sub-optimal. Take care that anyway autoreleasing happens a lot without explicit intervention. For example many getters are implemented this way:
return [[myObject retain] autorelease];
so whenever you call the getter you add an object to the autorelease pool.
You can send the autorelease message at any point, because it isn't acted on until the application's message loop repeats (i.e. until all your methods have finished executing in response to user input).
http://macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2001/07/27/cocoa.html?page=last&x-showcontent=text
You have alloc'ed the object, then it's your job to release it at some point. Both code snippets work merely the same, correct way, with the autorelease way being the potentionally slower counterpart.
Personally speaking, I prefer the autorelease way, since it's just easier to type and almost never is a bottleneck.
They're both OK. Some people will tell you to avoid autorelease because of "overhead" or some such thing, but the truth is, there is practically no overhead. Go ahead and benchmark it and try to find the "overhead." The only reason you'd avoid it is in a memory-starved situation like on the iPhone. On OS X, you have practically unlimited memory, so it isn't going to make much of a difference. Just use whichever is most convenient for you.
I prefer A (autoreleasing) for brevity and "safety", as johne calls it. It simplifies my code, and I've never run into problems with it.
That is, until today: I had a problem with autoreleasing a block before adding it to an array. See my stackoverflow question:
[myArray addObject:[[objcBlock copy] autorelease]] crashes on dealloc'ing the array (Update: Turns out the problem was elsewhere in my code, but still, there was a subtle difference in behavior with autorelease…)