Let's assume that we create an instance of class var foo: Foo? = Foo() on the main thread and we call some time consuming instance method bar of Foo on another thread, after a short time we set foo to nil on main thread. What happens with the execution of bar, in my understanding bar should still continue its execution since invoking instance method implicitly passes self as the first argument, so even those the last explicit ref to foo was broken we still have a ref inside of a method and it should be good. But then I found this stackoverflow post which completely breaks my understanding. So, can somebody confirm/deny the fact that object cannot be deallocated during its method execution
Short answer is that your belief is correct, and you're looking at a question that's not relevant to Swift.
Your link is to non-ARC Objective-C. Swift always uses ARC, and ARC is very conservative about retains. Consider the following Objective-C call:
[target runMethod: parameter];
Under ARC, this is (conceptually) transformed into:
[target retain];
[parameter retain];
[target runMethod: parameter];
[parameter release];
[target release];
retain and release are atomic, thread-safe calls.
A similar behavior exists in Swift. Because of this, as a general rule (in the absence of Unsafe), a variable cannot "disappear" while you'll holding onto it.
This is the implementation detail. The better way to think about it is that by default variables and parameters are strong, and an object cannot be destroyed while there is a strong reference. This matches your understanding.
Prior to ARC, though, you needed to insert extra retains and releases yourself to protect against this kind of situation, and it was very common not to. (Prior to 10.6, most ObjC was single-threaded.)
Even without threads, there are ways this can go astray without ARC. Since callers often didn't immediately retain returned values if they only needed them temporarily, it was possible to get dangling pointers even without multiple threads. For example, with a trivial accessor with no memory management, this can crash:
NSString *name = [person name];
[person release];
[self doSomethingWithName: name];
This is why you often see old ObjC getters written in the form:
- (NSString*) title {
return [[title retain] autorelease];
}
This made sure that the returned value would survive until the end of the event loop even if self released it or self was deallocated.
Swift does similar things via ARC, but as the name suggests, it's all automatic.
Related
When you write code like below in ARC
__weak NSMutableArray* array = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
The compiler will show you a warning or error and say "Assigning retained object to weak variable. object will be released after assignment".
But if you write like this:
__weak NSMutableArray* array = [NSMutableArray array];
There is no error.
I'm wondering if the second usage is reasonable in some situations? What's the difference between these two codes from memory management perspective? How does it work?
There can be very subtle differences that the compiler cannot know.
Let's take an immutable version: [NSArray array] could return the very same static object every time. So your weak variable will point to a valid object, that has a strong reference somewhere else. Or think of the singleton pattern. On the other hand, when calling alloc/init, convention dictates that you're the only owner of that object, and that will typically leave you with nothing.
Also, the factory method certainly looks more like a (functional) method. In any case, it doesn't communicate ownership of what it returns very well. For an autoreleased object, it's not clear whether you're the the only owner or a shared owner.
They are the same because you lose the object instantly. Compiler cannot know probably, except alloc init, that the object will be lost.
In the first form, the method returns a retained object. ARC ensures, that the object is released when there is no strong reference on the call-site. This is immediately true, with the weak reference - thus, the compiler emits a warning or error.
In the second form, the method returns an unretained object. In this case, the compiler must ensure that the object is still valid across the return boundary. When returning from such a function or method, ARC retains the value at the point of evaluation of the return statement, then leaves all local scopes, and then balances out the retain while ensuring that the value lives across the call boundary. That is, there is a strong reference created by the compiler. This strong reference will be automatically released by the compiler generated code.
Thus, in this case there's no error or warning.
In the worst case, holding that object may require to use an autorelease pool. However the compiler can apply certain optimisations which avoids this. Thus we should not assume that the returned object lives in an auto release pool.
See specification: http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AutomaticReferenceCounting.html#id14
See also this question on SO: Difference between [NSMutableArray array] vs [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]
I have been using blocks and familiar with the memory management when using self inside blocks in
Non-ARC environment
But I have two specific questions:
1) I understand I can use __block to avoid the retain cycle a retained block which in turn using self can create, like below:
__block MyClass *blockSelf = self;
self.myBlock = ^{
blockSelf.someProperty = abc;
[blockSelf someMethod];
};
This will avoid the retain cycle for sure but I by doing this I have created a scope for self to be released and eventually deallocated by someone else. So when this happen self is gone and blockSelf is pointing to a garbage value. There can be conditions when the block is executed after the self is deallocated, then the block will crash as it is trying to use deallocated instance. How do we can avoid this condition? How do I check if blockSelf is valid when block executes or stop block from executing when self is deallocated.
2) On the similar lines suppose I use block like below:
__block MyClass *blockSelf = self;
self.myBlock = ^{
[blockSelf someMethod:blockSelf.someProperty];
};
// I am taking someProperty in an method argument
-(void) someMethod:(datatype*)myClassProperty
{
myClassProperty = abc;
}
Now there can be situations where self is not released but someProperty is released before someMethod's execution starts (This could happen when there are multiple threads). Even if I do self.someProperty = nil; when it is release, myClassProperty is not nil and pointing to some garbage, hence when someMethod is executed the first line will lead to crash. How do I avoid this?
This is the same issue as non-zeroing weak references everywhere else in non-ARC code, e.g. delegates etc. (MRC doesn't have zeroing weak references; so these are the only kind of weak reference in MRC. Yet people were still able to write safe code in the pre-ARC days.)
Basically, the solution is that you need a clear map of ownership. Either self is responsible for keeping the block alive; or some other object is responsible for keeping the block alive.
For example, with delegates, usually, a "parent" object is the delegate of a "child" object; in this case the "parent" object is responsible for keeping the "child" object alive, so the "parent" object will outlive the "child" object, thus the back reference can be weak and is safe (because the child object's methods could only possibly be called by the parent object while the parent object is alive).
On the other hand, if you have an asynchronous operation, and the block is given to the operation as a callback, then usually the operation is responsible for holding onto the block. In this case, self would not hold onto the block. And the block would hold a strong reference to self, so that when the operation is done, it can still safely do whatever it is that it needs to do on self. In fact, whatever object self is, it doesn't even need to be retained by whoever uses it, since it is indirectly retained by the asynchronous operation -- it can just be a create, fire, and forget kind of thing.
If you have something where the block is sometimes kept alive by self, and sometimes kept alive by something else, then you should re-think your design. You say "There can be conditions when the block is executed after the self is deallocated"; well, you should describe your whole design and how this can happen. Because usually, for something that is executed asynchronously, self need not hold onto the block.
Your code is really confusing and doesn't make sense. For example, why would you assign to a parameter (myClassProperty)? What's the point of passing an argument when the parameter is going to be overwritten anyway? Why would you name a local variable "myClassProperty"?
What I think you are asking about is accessing a property that can be changed on different threads, and how to deal with the memory management of that. (This question is unrelated to blocks or ARC/MRC. It is equally an issue in ARC.)
The answer is that you need an atomic property. You can make a synchronized property atomic, or implement an atomic property manually if you know how. What an atomic property of object pointer type needs to do is its getter needs to not just return the underlying variable, but also retain and autorelease it, and return the result of that. The retrieval and retaining in the getter occurs in a critical section that is synchronized with a critical section in the setter that includes the release of the old value and retaining of the new. Basically, this synchronization guarantees that the value will not be released in the setter in between retrieving the value and retaining it in the getter. And the value returned from the getter is retained and autoreleased, so it is guaranteed to be alive for the duration of the scope.
Solution for 2)
__block MyClass *blockSelf = self;
self.myBlock = ^{
datatype* p = [blockSelf.someProperty retain];
[blockSelf someMethod:p];
[p release];
};
// I am taking someProperty in an method argument
-(void) someMethod:(datatype*)myClassProperty
{
myClassProperty = abc;
}
For 1) don't know how you use myBlock. If it's used only by self, then all will be fine. And if it's used by some other object, then it's also should have retained reference at self and then there is also all will be fine.
As I was walking through some line of codes I stumbled upon this problem a couple of days ago,
- (void)dealloc {
...
[self.postOfficeService deregister:self];
...
}
Where the de-registration from the Post Office Service is an asynchronous operation, even if it's not self evident from the interface as there's no block or function passed to the postOfficeService.
The internal implementation of postOfficeService's -deregister method is something like that
// -deregister:(id)formerSubscriber implementation
//some trivial checks here
// deregister former subscriber
dispatch_asynch(_serialQueue, ^{
[self.subcribers removeObject:formerSubscriber];
});
...
The container, self.subscribers, does perfectly its job and contains only weak references. I.e. it is a NSHashTable.
As long as the deregistration method got called within the dealloc method, I keep on getting a crash while postOfficeService is trying to remove the former subscribers from its list inside that asynch block, which is used for thread safety purposes I guess.
Adding a breakpoint on [self.subscribers removeObject:formerSubscriber], it's possible to notice that the formerSubscriber object is always a NSZombieObject. That's the reason for crashes.
I know that it's possible to get thread safety for deregister method without incurring in this problem - I figure it should be enough use the dispatch_synch in lieu of the dispatch_asynch version
I think this is one of the reason why asynchronous methods shouldn't be called within dealloc methods.
But the question is how's possible to constantly get NSZombie objects even if we are in an ARC environment and the container objects is a NSHashTable (so it should be working I guess)?
The rule is: When dealloc is called, the object will be gone once dealloc returns to its caller (whoever called release when the reference count was 0), and nothing is going to prevent this.
Before ARC, you might have tried to retain an object inside dealloc - doesn't help; once dealloc is called the object will go (and dealloc will be called only once for it, in case you do a retain / release inside dealloc). ARC does the same, just automatically.
Using ARC doesn't means all your memory problem magically disappeared.
What happened is
[obj release] called by ARC
[obj dealloc]
[obj.postOfficeService deregister:obj]
[obj retain] - sorry you can't cancel the deallocation process
dispatch_async
free(obj) - from this point, obj is a zombie
GCD scheduling tasks
dispatch_async execute task
use obj - crash
The correct solution is use dispatch_sync to make sure you not trying to use object after it is deallocated. (be careful about dead lock)
Don't call asynchronous cleanup methods from dealloc. It's just not a good idea. Your -deregister should be synchronous.
NSHashTable stores pointers - it's the equivalent of __unsafe_unretained or assign - UNLESS it was created using +weakObjectsHashTable or the equivalent set of options (NSHashTableZeroingWeakMemory and NSPointerFunctionsObjectPersonality). If it was not created that way, it is quite likely you will have values pointing to zombie objects.
The question of "why am I getting zombies" is best answered by profiling your application with the Zombies template in Instruments and stimulating the required behavior.
I agree with the others that you should probably avoid asynchronous cleanup in your -dealloc method. However, it may be possible to fix this by making the parameter to -deregister: __unsafe_unretained. That method would then have to treat the pointer purely as a opaque value. It must not dereference it or message it. Unfortunately, you don't control the implementation of NSHashTable and can't guarantee that. Even if NSHashTable could be relied upon, the interface of -removeObject: takes an implicitly strong object pointer, so ARC might retain the pointer when it's copied from the unsafe unretained pointer.
You might use the C function API for hash tables (e.g. NSHashRemove()) as suggested in the overview for the NSHashTable class.
I am new to IOS development and I have started to learn objective c to program towards IOS 7. and as I know, it is way easier to code now than it has been before because of the Automatic reference counting.
there are a couple of things I do not understand . in MAIN method we have the autoreleasepool block, so my first question is that in order to enable ARC , the code has to be inside this block? if no, then what is the difference between the code that is inside autoreleasepool and the rest those aren't?
my second question is that when I am writing my IPHONE programs , I have bunch of classes and non of those codes are inside "autoreleasepool" , only the code inside the MAIN method.
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
#autoreleasepool {
return UIApplicationMain(argc, argv, nil,
NSStringFromClass([HomepwnerAppDelegate class]));
}
}
so , does this mean that this block somehow magically gets applied to all lines of code inside any other classes of the same program?
My last question is that whether with ARC or without it, if we had a declared pointer variable inside a method, does the object gets released/destroyed when the method returns/exit?
assume we have a method like this :
- (void)doSomething {
NSMutableArray *allItems = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
NSString *myString = #"sample string";
[allItems addObject:myString]
}
then when we call this method and it exits, what would happen to those local variables defined inside the method ? is there any difference in the outcome if we are using ARC or not ? (Object are still in the memory or not)
Autorelease pools predate ARC by about 15 years. Cocoa uses a reference-counting memory management scheme, where (conceptually, at least) objects are created with a reference count of 1, retain increases it by 1 and release decreases the count by 1, and the object is destroyed when the count gets to 0.
A problem with this scheme is that it makes returning an object kind of awkward, because you can't release the object before you return it — if you did, it might be destroyed before the other method got to use it — but you don't want to require the other method to release the object either. This is where autorelease pools come in. An autorelease pool lets you hand an object to it, and it promises to release the object for you later. Under manual retain/release (the way we used to do things before ARC), you did this by sending autorelease to an object.
OK, so then ARC comes into the picture. The only thing that really changes with ARC is that you aren't the one writing retain, release and autorelease anymore — the compiler inserts them for you. But you still need an autorelease pool for autoreleased object to go into.
As for your second question:
My last question is that whether with ARC or without it, if we had a declared pointer variable inside a method, does the object gets released/destroyed when the method returns/exit?
assume we have a method like this :
- (void)doSomething {
NSMutableArray *allItems = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
NSString *myString = #"sample string";
[allItems addObject:myString]
}
then when we call this method and it exits, what would happen to those local variables defined inside the method ? is there any difference in the outcome if we are using ARC or not ?
If you're using ARC, the compiler will release any objects referenced by local variables. If you're not using ARC, you'd need write [allItems release] yourself, because the variable going out of scope does not magically cause the object it references to be released.
new to IOS development
Best not to worry, Automatic means that you mostly concentrate on other things ^)
does this mean that this block somehow magically gets applied to all lines of code inside any other classes of the same program
Yes. You're in main function, so all the code that is executed has to be inside this function - your app will terminate once it ends. Unless you create a separate thread, but it's hard to do that by accident.
the code has to be inside this block
As said above, all of your code on main thread will execute within this block.
what would happen to those local variables defined inside the method
You're guaranteed that they will be destroyed before returning.
in MAIN method we have the autoreleasepool block, so my first question is that in order to enable ARC, the code has to be inside this block? if no, then what is the difference between the code that is inside autoreleasepool and the rest those aren't?
ARC is enabled by corresponding Objective-C compiler setting. If you create a new project in the latest version of Xcode it will be enabled by default.
The #autorelease keyword places code inside the curly brackets into autorelease pool scope. Autorelease pools are used both with ARC and manual memory management.
my second question is that when I am writing my IPHONE programs , I have bunch of classes and non of those codes are inside "autoreleasepool" , only the code inside the MAIN method.
iOS applications are event based. Main thread starts event loop when you call UIApplicationMain function processing touch events, notifications etc. This event loop has its own autorelease pool that autoreleases objects at the end of the loop iteration. This autorelease pool has nothing to do with the autorelease pool you see in main function.
My last question is that whether with ARC or without it, if we had a declared pointer variable inside a method, does the object gets released/destroyed when the method returns/exit?
If you use ARC the objects will be released (unless you return a reference to an object from the method). In MMR you would need to manually send release message to destroy the objects.
I'm currently developing a game for iOS and we have a memory leak. Our project is ARC set up. I was wondering on how to ensure memory deallocation. One of the steps I was thinking of taking was convert code of the form:
-(void)methodMethod{
Object* o = [[Object alloc] init];
// Some logic
}
into:
-(void)methodMethod{
Object* o = [[Object alloc] init];
// Some logic
o = nil; // Explicit nil assignment
}
Is there a difference between the two? What other measures should I take to ensure a dealloc in an ARC setup?
We're using the Sparrow Framework.
Both methods do the same thing. Local objects are set to nil by ARC when they leave scope, so putting in a manual nil does nothing.
If you want to find a leak - you are far better off actually running it through Instruments with the Leaks tool and finding out what is being leaked, which will give you a better idea of what is going on. It's quite handy for finding retain-cycles.
As pointed out by Abizem, both methods lead to the same results, and require careful passes through Instruments. The results are not always easy to interpret.
In ARC, you should never see a leak - in the usual obj-C meaning -. Sometimes, iOS instruments can report a leak, but most if not all, this comes from the runtime, and I tend to regard them as beyond my control. What you can see however, is uncontrolled memory increase, which is typical of memory retention. Keeping strong pointers on objects is the obvious reason, which in my case has always been the consequence of : retain cycles in code blocks, and incorrect data structure cleanup, i.e. objects are created, then filled into arrays, dictionary, page control etc... but the later were not emptied properly during the app lifecycle.
Also image processing functions still use standard malloc/free directives embedded into internals UIGraphics lib, so in that case you explicitly need to free the memory (CGImageRelease, etc...). ARC will not help here.
hope this helps narrow down the problem, which as Abizem pointed out, should start with Instruments.
the following is unnecessary but (at least for me) the discussion in the comments was helpful and that's why I leave it
wrap the method in an #autoreleasepool. that will make it 99% percent sure it is being deallocated
-(void)methodMethod{
#autoreleasepool {
Object* o = [[Object alloc] init];
// Some logic
}
}
Both are the same.
A better solution to test your class:
- (void)testDealloc
{
__weak CLASS *weakReference;
#autoreleasepool {
CLASS *reference = [[CLASS alloc] init]; // or similar instance creator.
weakReference = reference;
// Test your magic here.
[...]
}
// At this point the everything is working fine, the weak reference must be nil.
XCTAssertNil(weakReference);
}
This works creating an instance to the class we want to deallocate inside #autorealase, that will be released (if we are not leaking) as soon as we exit the block. weakReference will hold the reference to the instance without retaining it, that will be set to nil.