With the recent XCode update some code blocks are displaying as warnings where "Block implicitly retains 'self'"
It is my understanding that the when you create blocks it is best practice to create a weak self to keep from creating a strong reference that will not be garbage collected.
In the below example I set the myArray to self->myArray as recommended by XCode. Does this create the strong reference? Why can't I use 'weakSelf->myArray`? Attempting to do so results in this error:
Dereferencing a __weak pointer is not allowed due to possible null
value caused by race condition, assign it to strong variable first
I thought the whole point was to create weak refrences? Isn't weakSelf just a pointer to self?
Is the self-> even necessary in the below instance?
#interface SomeViewController (){
NSMutableArray * myArray;
}
#end
- (void) doSomethingInBackground {
// Do NSURLSessionTask on the background and onCompletion call mySuccessBlock.
}
- (SomeBlock) mySuccessBlock {
__block __typeof__(SomeViewController) __weak * weakSelf = self;
return ^(NSDictionary* result){
//this line is my related to my question
self->myArray = [weakSelf sortResultsAlphabetically: result];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
[weakSelf.tableView reloadData]
});
};
}
Would recasting to be the correct way?
SomeViewController * strongSelf = weakSelf;
strongSelf->myArray = [weakSelf sortResultsAlphabetically: result];
The error message is right. You have to do the "weak-strong dance". You are only doing half of the dance. Pass self into the block as weak, but then immediately assign it, inside the block, to a strong reference (as in your edited "Would recasting to be the correct way?").
Related
I'm trying to correctly avoid retain cycles with blocks in Objective C, and am not sure about having nested blocks.
If I write a simple block like this:
[self doSomethingWithBlock:^{
[self doSomethingElse];
}];
The compiler catches and warns me that this could cause retain cycles. I change it as follows to avoid the cycle:
__weak __typeof(self)weakSelf = self;
[self doSomethingWithBlock:^{
__strong __typeof(weakSelf)strongSelf = weakSelf;
[strongSelf doSomethingElse];
}];
When I write something like this:
[self doSomethingWithBlock:^(MyObject* object){
[object doSomethingElseWithBlock:^{
[self doYetAnotherThing];
}];
}];
The compiler is happy, but I'm not convinced that it's safe. Even though there is an intermediary object in between, it still looks conceptually the same as above, but now it's a cycle with 3 retains.
Should it be like this instead?
[self doSomethingWithBlock:^(MyObject* object){
__weak __typeof(self)weakSelf = self;
[object doSomethingElseWithBlock:^{
__strong __typeof(weakSelf)strongSelf = weakSelf;
[strongSelf doYetAnotherThing];
}];
}];
Or like this?
__weak __typeof(self)weakSelf = self;
[self doSomethingWithBlock:^(MyObject* object){
[object doSomethingElseWithBlock:^{
__strong __typeof(weakSelf)strongSelf = weakSelf;
[strongSelf doYetAnotherThing];
}];
}];
In this situation, you are not worried about cyclic references. What you are worried about is a situation where the object self isn't actually needed anymore, but using self inside a nested block would keep it unnecessarily alive. For example, if you have a view controller that should go away when the view is removed by the screen, but you download an image that you would like to display in the controllers view. If the image arrives long after the view is already gone, you don't want the view controller alive anymore.
Best is
__weak typeof (self) weakSelf = self;
before calling the outermost method. Then within every block that ought to use self, you add
typeof (self) strongSelf = weakSelf;
and use strongSelf within that block. Depending on the situation, you might want to check that strongSelf isn't nil at that point, but sending messages to strongSelf when it is nil has no effect, so if all you do is sending messages and getting or setting properties, then a check for nil is not necessary.
What happens if you don't do this? The difference will be that self may be kept alive unnecessarily into the innermost block, if you use self everywhere (or just in the innermost block).
You should not capture something weakly just because you get a warning from the compiler; the compiler warning is just guessing; it doesn't know how the methods you call make the references. You should only do this if you understand the architecture of the references and determine that there is a cycle and determine that capturing a weak reference instead still preserves the intended behavior. You haven't shown us the code of -doSomethingWithBlock:. It would only create a retain cycle if inside that method it assigns the block to a property or instance variable of self. Does it do that or not? If not, then there is no retain cycle, and there is no point to the outer block capturing self weakly.
Assuming that the outer block capturing self weakly is right, the examples where the outer block captures self strongly are out of the question. The remaining questions would be whether the inner block should capture self (or whatever version of self, e.g. strongSelf, is appropriate) strongly. In other words, whether you would do something like this:
__weak __typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
[self doSomethingWithBlock:^(MyObject* object){
__strong __typeof(weakSelf) strongSelf = weakSelf;
if (strongSelf) {
[object doSomethingElseWithBlock:^{
[strongSelf doYetAnotherThing];
}];
}
}];
or something like this:
__weak __typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
[self doSomethingWithBlock:^(MyObject* object){
__strong __typeof(weakSelf) strongSelf = weakSelf;
if (strongSelf) {
[object doSomethingElseWithBlock:^{
__strong __typeof(weakSelf) strongSelf = weakSelf;
if (strongSelf) {
[strongSelf doYetAnotherThing];
}
}];
}
}];
Again, the main issue to determine is whether there is a retain cycle if the inner block captures self strongly. There would only be a retain cycle if [object doSomethingElseWithBlock:... somehow assigns the block to a property or instance variable of self. But how could it? The method is called on object, not self. The method does not get self in any way. Unless there is something complicated going on, the method is not going to assign to a property or instance variable of self, so it is unlikely to create a retain cycle. This means that the inner block capturing self weakly is not necessary to prevent a retain cycle.
But whether the inner block captures self weakly or strongly could affect the behavior. Namely, if the inner block captures self weakly, self could be deallocated by the time the block is run, in which case [strongSelf doYetAnotherThing]; will not be executed, whereas if the inner block captured self strongly, it would keep self alive and [strongSelf doYetAnotherThing]; would be executed. So it depends on what -doYetAnotherThing does. If it performs some UI operation on self which is a UI view or something, then whether you perform it on a view that is no longer displayed doesn't make a difference. But if it for example sends something to the network or something, then whether or not it is executed can make a big difference.
Xcode 8 beta 4 underlines the self keyword, and warns of a possible retain cycle for having used it inside the block.
Per Apple Developer Connection's Programming in Objective-C (Working with Blocks):
Avoid Strong Reference Cycles when Capturing self If you need to
capture self in a block, such as when defining a callback block, it’s
important to consider the memory management implications.
Blocks maintain strong references to any captured objects, including
self, which means that it’s easy to end up with a strong reference
cycle if, for example, an object maintains a copy property for a block
that captures self:
#interface XYZBlockKeeper : NSObject
#property (copy) void (^block)(void);
#end
#implementation XYZBlockKeeper
- (void)configureBlock {
self.block = ^{
[self doSomething]; // capturing a strong reference to self
// creates a strong reference cycle
};
}
...
#end
The compiler will warn you for a simple example like this, but a more
complex example might involve multiple strong references between
objects to create the cycle, making it more difficult to diagnose.
To avoid this problem, it’s best practice to capture a weak reference
to self, like this:
- (void)configureBlock {
XYZBlockKeeper * __weak weakSelf = self;
self.block = ^{
[weakSelf doSomething]; // capture the weak reference
// to avoid the reference cycle
}
}
By capturing the weak pointer to self, the block won’t maintain a
strong relationship back to the XYZBlockKeeper object. If that object
is deallocated before the block is called, the weakSelf pointer will
simply be set to nil.
This site reportedly provides a means for making the self keyword weak whenever it's used inside a block; it also provides instructions for returning a weak self or class object formerly strong, strong again:
https://coderwall.com/p/vaj4tg/making-all-self-references-in-blocks-weak-by-default
Look at the answer for this question.
I'd do this
__weak typeof (self) weakSelf = self;
[self doSomethingWithBlock:^(MyObject* object){
[object doSomethingElseWithBlock:^{
[weakSelf doYetAnotherThing];
}];
}];
When using a __weak self reference in my block that runs on a background thread, do I only need to check for nil in the beginning, or can the __weak self become nil even during execution after the first nil test has passed? I want to access some ivars from self in the block and I need the latest values at the time the block is executing.
If no one is holding a reference to self then yes. You can mitigate this by taking a strong reference in the block
__weak __typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
^{
__strong __typeof(weakSelf) strongSelf = weakSelf;
if (!strongSelf) {
return;
}
};
You can avoid having your reference set to nil by strongly referencing it from inside the block.
Get a strong reference to your weak pointer inside the block.
__weak MyObject *weakSelf = self; // a weak reference
myBlock = ^{
MyObject *innerSelf = weakSelf; // a block-local strong reference
NSLog(#"MyObject: %#", innerSelf);
};
Avoid using the variables directly, because it will cause retain cycles.
If you use an instance variable directly within a block, the block will capture self so you'll have to reference the instance variables using their accessors.
__weak MyObject *weakSelf = self;
myBlock = ^{
MyObject *innerSelf = weakSelf; // a block-local strong reference
NSLog(#"MyObject: %#", innerSelf);
NSLog(#"MyObject ID: %d", innerSelf.objectID);
};
If you use the instance variables directly like this:
NSLog(#"MyObject ID: %d", _objectID);
The compiler interprets _objectID as self->_objectID, where self is captured by your block.
It is in the nature of a weak reference that it can become nil at any time, when the last strong reference is removed in another thread. This is fatal if you access member variables because you will crash, and it is fatal if you call a method on that weak variable, since self is unsafe unretained.
There is a trivial way to fix this which everyone uses: Store the weak variable into a string one before doing anything, without any checks. Then you check whether the strong variable is nil; that check is needed once.
Turn all warnings on in Xcode, so you will get a warning if you do anything dangerous.
So I was reading How do I avoid capturing self in blocks when implementing an API? about how memory management works in regards to referencing self within a completion block and that got me thinking: will the following cause a retain cycle?
Pseudocode:
[AFnetworking requestGet:#"http://www.website.com" completionBlock:(^)(RequestObj* request, NSError* error){
[self.tableView reloadData];
}];
Ignoring syntax problems, does self.tableView cause a retain cycle? Is it necessary to do the following instead?
__weak id weakSelf = self;
[AFnetworking requestGet:#"http://www.website.com" completionBlock:(^)(RequestObj* request, NSError* error){
[weakSelf.tableView reloadData];
}];
Or is there some sort of memory magic that AFNetworking does to prevent this?
Edit courtesy of Aaron Brager
Here you don't have a retain cycle. But if you did, in the completion block, you should convert weakSelf back into a strong reference so it won't get deallocated halfway through your completion block.
id strongSelf = weakSelf;
[strongSelf.tableView reloadData];
A retain cycle occurs when two or more objects have strong references to each other.
In this case, the block will have a strong reference to self, but self doesn't have a strong reference to the block, so you are fine here and no need to use weakSelf.
The case when you'll have a retain cycle and need to break it by using the weakSelf is when the class has a strong reference to the block too like in the following example:
typedef void (^CompletionCallback)(RequestObj* request, NSError* error);
#interface SomeClass() {
/// Strong reference to the block
CompletionCallback completionBlock;
}
#end
#implementation SomeClass()
- (void)someMethod {
completionBlock = ^(RequestObj* request, NSError* error) {
/// Strong reference to the class
[self.tableView reloadData];
};
[AFnetworking requestGet:#"http://www.website.com" completionBlock:completionBlock];
}
#end
In this example, both completionBlock and self have strong references to each other, and therefore you'll have a retain cycle here and need to break it.
I have seen the following code in WWDC 2011- Session 322 Objective-C Advancement in Depth
-(void) startBlinker{
__weak MyClass * weakSelf = self;
blinker = [BlinkerService register:^{
MyClass *strongSelf = weakSelf;
if(strongSelf){
[strongSelf->myView blink];
}
}];
}
I think I can implement it just check weakSelf like
if(weakSelf){
[weakSelf->myView blink];
}
why the code use a strongSelf?
If the object a weak reference points to is deallocated, the weak reference evaluates to nil. Calling methods on nil is okay but accessing fields using the arrow operator is not. So you have to make sure the pointer is not nil before accessing the field via the arrow pointer.
if(weakSelf){ // no weak sheeps this week
// weakSelf may get deallocated at this point.
// In that case the next line will crash the app.
[weakSelf->myView blink];
}
The strong self guarantees that self will not be deallocated between the if and the statements in the if block.
Usually a weak reference is done like this to avoid retain cycles in blocks. Blocks retain self which causes a retain cycle if you try to access a strong reference to self. So you create a weak self outside the block and access it within the block to avoid the retain cycle.
Ahmed Mohammed is correct, however another possible solution is to declare myView as a property, rather than as an iVar and do this:
-(void) startBlinker{
__weak MyClass * weakSelf = self;
blinker = [BlinkerService register:^{
MyClass *strongSelf = weakSelf;
[strongSelf.myView blink];
}];
}
This way, you don't really care if strongSelf is nil or not.
What happens if I send a message to a weak object? Does sending the message possess the object and hold it in memory until return?
I'm thinking of this pattern:
__weak MyObject *weakSelf = self;
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
[weakSelf doSomeAction];
});
Assuming weakSelf is non-nil when the message is sent, might it be deallocated while doSomeAction is working or is it guaranteed to remain valid until doSomeAction returns?
From the Clang ARC documentation:
Reading occurs when performing a lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on an object lvalue.
For __weak objects, the current pointee is retained and then released at the end of the current full-expression. This must execute atomically with respect to assignments and to the final release of the pointee.
Messaging a weak reference performs an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on the variable, which means the value of the weak reference will be retained and then released at the end of the current full-expression (basically, the statement). It's basically equivalent to assigning to a strong variable whose scope only lasts for the current statement, and then messaging that strong variable.
The takeaway here is if you want to message a weak variable once, and never touch it again, and you don't care about the side-effects of evaluating the arguments to the method in the case where the weak reference ends up nil, then go ahead and message the weak reference directly. But if you need to refer to the weak reference twice (in separate statements), or the side-effects of evaluating the arguments do matter, then you should assign to a strong variable and test for non-nil before proceeding.
You asked:
Assuming weakSelf is non-nil when the message is sent, might it be deallocated while doSomeAction is working or is it guaranteed to remain valid until doSomeAction returns?
This ARC behavior has changed over time. But nowadays, weak references can be released as soon as the last strong reference is removed.
Thus, consider the following:
- (void)dealloc {
NSLog(#"%s", __FUNCTION__);
}
- (void)startBackgroundOperation {
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
[weakSelf doSomeAction];
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:5];
[weakSelf doSomeAction2];
});
}
- (void)doSomeAction {
NSLog(#"%s", __FUNCTION__);
}
- (void)doSomeAction2 {
NSLog(#"%s", __FUNCTION__);
}
If you have some code invoke startBackgroundOperation and let the object be deallocated in the intervening time between doSomeAction and doSomeAction2, you will see the former will be called and the latter will not. I.e. if there were no more strong references, the object could be deallocated in the middle of the block.
So, if you want weak reference, but want an “all or none” sort of behavior whereby it to be retained for the duration of the closure, we perform what is jokingly referred to as the “weakSelf-strongSelf dance”:
- (void)startBackgroundOperation {
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
typeof(self) strongSelf = weakSelf; // establish just-in-time strong reference (if `weakSelf` is not yet `nil`)
[strongSelf doSomeAction];
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:5];
[strongSelf doSomeAction2];
});
}
This will ensure that the block has a weak reference, but if it is not deallocated by the time it hits the assignment of strongSelf, then it will establish and maintain a strong reference for the duration of the block.
For what it is worth, this weakSelf-strongSelf pattern is essential when dereferencing ivars with -> (avoiding race conditions with weakSelf).
E.g.
- (void)badDeferenceExample {
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
if (!weakSelf) { return; }
NSInteger value = weakSelf->_someIVar; // this is race and can crash!!!
...
});
}
- (void)properDeferenceExample {
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
typeof(self) strongSelf = weakSelf; // establish just-in-time strong reference (if `weakSelf` is not yet `nil`)
if (!strongSelf) { return; }
NSInteger value = strongSelf->_someIVar; // this is safe
...
});
}