I often see when we release ab object we immediately set it to nil. I know that release and nil both free the old value associated with object but in case of release it leaves the object as a dangling pointer so we have to set it to nil.
So my question is if nil frees the old value of the object and set the object to nil why should not we only use nil why w should use release too.
Way1:
MyClass *obj = [[MyClass alloc] init];
[obj release];
obj = nil;
Way2:
MyClass *obj = [[MyClass alloc] init];
obj = nil;
What is the real difference in way1 and way2 if use way1 why don't use way2 only?
Setting a pointer to nil does not release the memory occupied by the former destination of that pointer. In plain english, assigning it to nil does not release it.
If your application is garbage collected, release is a no-op and can be left out. Otherwise, it's very, very necessary. Hence, Way 1 is always correct, and Way 2 is correct only under garbage collection.
Note: This answer does not apply to projects using Automatic Reference Counting. Under ARC, setting a pointer to nil does send a release to the object.
It's as BJ said setting it to nil won't free up the memory, and in a non-gc collected environment would cause a memory leak. An alternative that'd possibly be valid as well would be
MyClass *obj = [[[MyClass alloc] init] autorelease];
obj = nil;
Related
I understand that when using Alloc, new or copy you own the object and need to release the object. I understand that if I retain an object that I need to release it.
But if I have the following statment at the end of a method:
return [[UIImage alloc] initWithContentsOfFile:path];
I own the UIImage object becaused I allocated the memory space, but I dont have a reference to it anymore because it was returned to the caller. In my dealloc() method I can't release it, since I dont have a reference.
So my question is, is this correct:
return [[[UIImage alloc] initWithContentsOfFile:path] autorelease];
I beleive in this case the caller then can retain the returned object if they like to take ownership and will eventually need to release themselves.
Thanks for your help.
Your assumptions are right. When you're returning an object, you should pass it as an autorelease object.
You use autorelease when you need to send a deferred release message—typically when returning an object from a method...
The whole point of autorelease was built around returning objects.
- (id)bad {
MyObj *obj = [[MyObj alloc] init];
return obj;
}
This code returns everything correctly, but you (as developer) must be sure to release the object later on.
- (id)moreBad {
MyObj *obj = [[MyObj alloc] init];
return [obj release];
}
This code uses the memory as expected, balancing retain and release in one scope, but returned object is garbage now (expect this to crash).
- (id)good {
MyObj *obj = [[MyObj alloc] init];
return [obj autorelease];
}
This code is "delayed release". I.e. you can retain the object at the caller side and the object would be safe. It could surely be broken if you don't have NSAutoreleasePool in scope, but that's a pretty rare condition, and you mostly know when that happens (the most common scenario is to start a new thread where there is no "default" autorelease pool).
So, the common practice is to balance the retain (and retain-like) and release methods in one scope. Next suggestion is to always have objects alloc-init-autoreleased, and switch to distinct releases if you have memory issues (like autoreleasing lots of objects in a loop). Next suggestion is to switch to ARC.
Both answers are correct, you may however not always have a convenience method at your disposal, so what I like to do is what you've done with autorelease:
- (MySomethingClass*)giveMeAFancyObject{
MySomethingClass *obj = [[[MySomethingClass alloc] init] autorelease];
obj.name = #"Something";
// do some setting up maybe
return obj;
}
If you use release, however, the string will be deallocated before it is returned (and the method would return an invalid object). Using autorelease, you signify that you want to relinquish ownership, but you allow the caller of the method to use the returned string before it is deallocated.
Why trying to alloc it? Just say:
return [UIImage imageWithContentsOfFile:path];
Nothing to alloc - nothing to release.
Also, this is the best option while using ARC, where a releasing attempt leads to error.
I'm going through all of my documentation regarding memory management and I'm a bit confused about something.
When you use #property, it creates getters/setters for the object:
.h:
#property (retain, nonatomic) NSString *myString
.m:
#synthesize myString
I understand that, but where I get confused is the use of self. I see different syntax in different blogs and books. I've seen:
myString = [NSString alloc] initWithString:#"Hi there"];
or
self.myString = [NSString alloc] initWithString:#"Hi there"];
Then in dealloc I see:
self.myString = nil;
or
[myString release];
or
self.myString = nil;
[myString release];
On this site, someone stated that using self adds another increment to the retain count? Is that true, I haven't seen that anywhere.
Do the automatic getters/setters that are provided autorelease?
Which is the correct way of doing all of this?
Thanks!
If you are not using the dot syntax you are not using any setter or getter.
The next thing is, it depends on how the property has been declared.
Let's assume something like this:
#property (nonatomic, retain) Article *article;
...
#synthesize article;
Assigning something to article with
self.article = [[Article alloc] init];
will overretain the instance given back by alloc/init and cause a leak. This is because the setter of article will retain it and will release any previous instance for you.
So you could rewrite it as:
self.article = [[[Article alloc] init] autorelease];
Doing this
article = [[Article alloc] init];
is also ok, but could involve a leak as article may hold a reference to an instance already. So freeing the value beforehand would be needed:
[article release];
article = [[Article alloc] init];
Freeing memory could be done with
[article release];
or with
self.article = nil;
The first one does access the field directly, no setters/getters involved. The second one sets nil to the field by using a setter. Which will release the current instance, if there is one before setting it to nil.
This construct
self.myString = nil;
[myString release];
is just too much, it actually sends release to nil, which is harmless but also needless.
You just have to mentally map hat using the dot syntax is using accessor methods:
self.article = newArticle
// is
[self setArticle:newArticle];
and
myArticle = self.article;
// is
myArticle = [self article];
Some suggestions on reading, all official documents by Apple:
The Objective-C Programming Language
Dot Syntax
Declared Properties
Memory Management Programming Guide
Object Ownership and Disposal
Using Accessor Methods
When you create a retain setter, you're creating something like this:
- (void)setString:(NSString *)someString {
if (someString != string) {
[string release];
[someString retain];
string = someString;
}
}
If you don't use the setter, the new value is not getting that retain—you don't "own" that string, and because it's all references, if the original string is released, you might be facing a null reference, which will lead to an EXC_BAD_ACCESS. Using the setter ensures that your class now has a copy of that value—so yes, it does increment the retain count of the new value. (Note that using the getter is a convention of OOP—that outsiders should not be able to directly touch the ivar. Also in your getter you can modify the value, maybe returning an NSArray when your ivar is an NSMutableArray, for example).
You shouldn't autorelease in a setter—Apple has used it in their sample code, but a thing to keep in mind is that setters are called a lot—millions of times, potentially. All of those objects are going into the same autorelease pool, so unless you create your own and/or regularly flush it, you'll have a ton of elements in your pool, all unneeded but still taking up RAM. Much better to simply release.
As for dealloc, trace back through that setter. If you send a release directly, it's obvious—you release that object. But if you write self.string = nil;, what you're doing is this:
The nil value is not the same, so you enter the if block
You release the old value—what you want to do
You retain nil: messages to nil do nothing, and you don't crash
You set nil, which doesn't take up any memory, to the string, which is now effectively empty
As a matter of convention, I use release in my dealloc method, because release seems more final, and dealloc is the final method call your object will receive. I use self.string = nil; in viewDidUnload and the memory warning methods.
Hope this helps!
In addition to Nick's answer - synthesized getters/setters don't provide autorelease (btw, what's the big idea of doing this? Well, you can use getter as a factory, but it's not a common way in Objective C).
Then in dealloc I see:
self.myString = nil;
or
[myString release];
or
self.myString = nil; [myString
release];
In dealloc it doesn't really matter which form of release you're using. But the good way is to nil your fields when releasing them :) I prefer to use self.myString = nil; in dealloc
I'm new to cocoa / objective-c and i'm struggeling with the releases of my objects. I have the following code:
gastroCategoryList = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
for (NSDictionary *gastrocategory in gastrocategories) {
NSString *oid = [gastrocategory objectForKey:#"id"];
GastroCategory *gc = [[GastroCategory alloc] initWithId:[oid intValue] name:[gastrocategory objectForKey:#"name"]];
[gastroCategoryList addObject:gc];
}
The analyzer shows me that the "gastrocategory" defined in the for is a potential memory leak. But i'm not sure if i can release this at the end of the for loop?
Also at the following code:
- (NSArray *)eventsForStage:(int)stageId {
NSMutableArray *result = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
for (Event *e in eventList) {
if ([e stageId] == stageId) {
[result addObject:e];
}
}
return result;
}
The Analyzer tells me that my "result" is a potential leak. But where should I release this?
Is there also a simple rule to memorize when i should use assign, copy, retain etc. at the #property ?
Another problem:
- (IBAction)showHungryView:(id)sender {
GastroCategoriesView *gastroCategoriesView = [[GastroCategoriesView alloc] initWithNibName:#"GastroCategoriesView" bundle:nil];
[gastroCategoriesView setDataManager:dataManager];
UIView *currentView = [self view];
UIView *window = [currentView superview];
UIView *gastroView = [gastroCategoriesView view];
[window addSubview:gastroView];
CGRect pageFrame = currentView.frame;
CGFloat pageWidth = pageFrame.size.width;
gastroView.frame = CGRectOffset(pageFrame,pageWidth,0);
[UIView beginAnimations:nil context:NULL];
currentView.frame = CGRectOffset(pageFrame,-pageWidth,0);
gastroView.frame = pageFrame;
[UIView commitAnimations];
//[gastroCategoriesView release];
}
I don't get it, the "gastroCategoriesView" is a potential leak. I tried to release it at the end or with autorelease but neither works fine. Everytime I call the method my app is terminating. Thank you very much again!
In your loop, release each gc after adding it to the list since you won't need it in your loop scope anymore:
gastroCategoryList = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
for (NSDictionary *gastrocategory in gastrocategories) {
NSString *oid = [gastrocategory objectForKey:#"id"];
GastroCategory *gc = [[GastroCategory alloc] initWithId:[oid intValue] name:[gastrocategory objectForKey:#"name"]];
[gastroCategoryList addObject:gc];
[gc release];
}
In your method, declare result to be autoreleased to absolve ownership of it from your method:
NSMutableArray *result = [[[NSMutableArray alloc] init] autorelease];
// An alternative to the above, produces an empty autoreleased array
NSMutableArray *result = [NSMutableArray array];
EDIT: in your third issue, you can't release your view controller because its view is being used by the window. Setting it to autorelease also causes the same fate, only delayed.
You'll have to retain your GastroCategoriesView controller somewhere, e.g. in an instance variable of your app delegate.
BoltClock's answer is spot-on as to the first part of your question. I'll try to tackle the rest.
Assign is for simple, non-object types such as int, double, or struct. It generates a setter that does a plain old assignment, as in "foo = newFoo". Copy & retain will, as their names imply, either make a copy of the new value ("foo = [newFoo copy]") or retain it ("foo = [newFoo retain]"). In both cases, the setter will release the old value as appropriate.
So the question is, when to copy and when to retain. The answer is... it depends. How does your class use the new value? Will your class break if some other code modifies the incoming object? Say, for example, you have an NSString* property imaginatively named "theString." Other code can assign an NSMutableString instance to theString - that's legal, because it's an NSString subclass. But that other code might also keep its own reference to the mutable string object, and change its value - is your code prepared to deal with that possibility? If not, it should make its own copy, which the other code can't change.
On the other hand, if your own code makes no assumptions about whether theString might have been changed, and works just as well whether or not it was, then you'd save memory by retaining the incoming object instead of unnecessarily making a copy of it.
Basically, the rule, which is unfortunately not so simple sometimes, is to think carefully about whether your own code needs its own private copy, or can correctly deal with a shared object whose value might be changed by other code.
The reason you can release gc after it is added to the gastroCategoryList is that when an object is added to an array, the array retains that object. So, even though you release your gc, it will still be around; retained by the gastroCategoryList.
When you are returning a newly created object from a method, you need to call autorelease. This will cause the object to be released only after the runtime leaves the scope of the calling method, thereby giving the calling method a chance to do something with the returned value.
Note that if your method starts with the word copy or new, then you should not autorelease your object; you should leave it for the calling method to release.
As for copy vs retain vs assign... as a general rule, copy objects that have a mutable version, such as NSArray, NSSet, NSDictionary, and NSString. This will ensure that the object you have a pointer to is not mutable when you don't want it to be.
Otherwise, use retain whenever you want your class to be ensured that an object is still in memory. This will apply to almost every object except for objects that are considered parents of your object, in which case you would use assign. (See the section on retain cycles here).
Also note that you have to use assign for non-object types such as int.
Read through the Memory Management Programming Guide a bit; it's quite helpful.
I was wondering if objective C does any check to see if a pointer to an object is nil before calling the function.
For example, say I have a
myObject* ptr;
and initialize
ptr = nil;
and call
[self myFunction:ptr];
where myFunction is my own function and does no check to see if the object is nil. I heard somewhere that objective C will not call the function if it is nil? Is this true and would my code be safe?
The reason I ask is because I'm implementing a universal app, and have an UIView instance that will only work for the ipad. But, I do many function calls for this view, and instead of doing condition checks to see if it is an ipad before calling the function, it would be great if I could set the view as nil if it's an iphone.
Also, if the interface builder allocated the object and I set the pointer to nil, will there be a memory leak or will the builder know to dealloc the object?
Thanks
You can always provide a method with a nil argument, but I think what you might be misunderstanding is about messaging nil.
MyClass *object = nil;
[object doSomething]; // nothing done, because object is nil
object = [[MyClass alloc] init];
[object doSomething]; // does something, because object points to an instance
To demonstrate providing nil as an argument:
NSMutableDictionary *myDict = [NSMutableDictionary dictionary];
[myDict setObject:#"Value 1" forKey:#"Key 1"];
[myDict setObject:nil forKey:#"Key 1"]; // perfectly valid
// myDict is empty again after setting nil value for "Key 1".
myDict = nil;
[myDict setObject:#"Value 1" forKey:#"Key 1"]; // nothing happens!
In the cases above, object and myDict are called the “receiver”. When the receiver is nil, no action is performed. This is quite different than other programming languages, for example, in C++ the following is not valid:
MyClass *object = NULL;
object->doSomething(); // oops, this is not allowed
As for the memory, if you have the object in the NIB file and then set its outlet to nil in the code, there will be a memory leak. You should release the object and then set it to nil.
It might be a good idea in that case, though, to simply create the object if it's an iPad and leave the variable as nil if it's an iPhone. That way you don't have to deal with any stray references that may crop up if you create the object in the NIB file. That may or may not be an issue, but it's probably better to create conditionally rather than destroy conditionally.
I'm following a book on iPhone development and there is a particular pattern I keep seeing in the example code that doesn't make much sense to me. Whenever a property is set they first assign a pointer to the new value for the property, then set the property to the pointer, then release the pointer. Example:
Interface:
#interface DoubleComponentPickerViewController : UIViewController {
NSArray *breadTypes;
}
#property(nonatomic, retain) NSArray *breadTypes;
#end
Class method:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
NSArray *breadArray = [[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:#"White", #"Whole Wheat", #"Rye", #"Sourdough", #"Seven Grain", nil];
self.breadTypes = breadArray;
[breadArray release];
}
Is there any reason to do this instead of just doing the following?
- (void)viewDidLoad {
self.breadTypes = [[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:#"White", #"Whole Wheat", #"Rye", #"Sourdough", #"Seven Grain", nil];
}
Thanks for the light that will no doubt be shed :)
Let me try and explain it in a different way.
A method that has alloc, copy or new in its name will allocate memory for an object, and gives ownership of that object to the caller, and it is the caller's responsibility to release that memory.
In your viewDidLoad method, you call a method that gives you ownership of an object. It is your method's responsibility to release it. However, before you do that, you want to do something with it - after all, that's why you alloc'ed it, not to just release it, but to do something useful with it.
Regardless of what it is that you want to do with it, you have to release it (or autorelease it*). In this case your use of the object is to pass it to self.breadTypes. self.breadTypes may not look like a method, but it is (it is a setter). You pass it breadArray. It does what it needs to with it. It might retain it for use later, or it might copy some info out of it, or make a copy of the entire thing. Your viewDidLoad doesn't really care. It assumes that self.breadTypes does what it needs to and when it returns, it doesn't care what you do with breadArray.
And what you do with it, is what you have to do with anything that you own - release (or autorelease* it).
That's why you have to use the temp variable, breadArray. You can't quite release the results from alloc on the same line, since the object would get released before self.breadTypes can have at it:
self.breadTypes = [[[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:#"White", ..., nil] release];
Thus you are forced to assign to a temp variable, pass it to self.breadTypes, and then release the object that is saved in breadArray.
Now, you could try to do it this way so you don't use a temp variable:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
self.breadTypes = [[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:#"White", #..., nil];
[self.breadTypes release];
}
but that is not very efficient since you are calling yet another method (self.breadTypes as a getter) that you didn't really need to if you have just stored the value in a temp variable.
*Now, as a responder said, you could use autorelease for an alternative version:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
self.breadTypes = [[[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:#"White", ..., nil]
autorelease];
}
Apple urges us to think twice about whether we want to use autorelease vs. release. Autorelease may not be the best choice for every situation. I personally like to clean up after myself as soon as I possibly can, and not use autorelease needlessly. Autoreleased objects get released at the end of the execution of the run loop, for example soon after viewDidLoad returns. You should read up a bit more about autorelease (and memory management on the iPhone which is slightly different than MacOS X Cocoa), as I am oversimplifying it all.
BTW: If you retain an object, you are assuming ownership of it, and you will have the same responsibility again, to release it after you are done with it.
Yes. Those methods are alloc'ing the variables so they must be released. The fact that the property has a retain attribute means that when you say #synthesize breadTypes; the compiler is actually generating a setBreadTypes that properly releases the current breadType member and retains the new one. Thus your function must not retain the variable it alloc'ed.
You could, however write:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
self.breadTypes = [[[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:#"White",
#"Whole Wheat", #"Rye", #"Sourdough",
#"Seven Grain", nil]
autorelease];
}
You'll want to brush up on Cocoa Memory Management