my code snippet:
- (void)viewDidUnload{
[super viewDidUnload];
self.statusView = nil;
self.tableView = nil;
self.noDataView = nil;
}
In a rare situation, my app crashed in line self.noDataView = nil;. When I debug by po self, it seemed that it's pointing something other than current controller. What is possible reason?
PS:self.tableView's delegate and dataSource is set to self in init method. Does that have any relation to this?
First, [super viewDidUnload] should be used as the last statement. However, that won't fix your error, probably.
The reason for your problem is quite simple. Your controller is overreleased somewhere. Do you have zombie detection enabled? The code where the application crashes is usually irrelevant because the problem happened earlier.
viewWillUnload is deprecated now, you can't count on it anymore, any question about it will lead you to the below references.
From Apple:
In iOS 6, the viewWillUnload and viewDidUnload methods of
UIViewController are now deprecated. If you were using these methods
to release data, use the didReceiveMemoryWarning method instead. You
can also use this method to release references to the view
controller’s view if it is not being used. You would need to test that
the view is not in a window before doing this.
And Quote WWDC 2012:
The method viewWillUnload and viewDidUnload. We're not going to call
them anymore. I mean, there's kind of a cost-benifit equation and
analysis that we went through. In the early days, there was a real
performance need for us to ensure that on memory warnings we unloaded
views. There was all kinds of graphics and backing stores and so forth
that would also get unloaded. We now unload those independently of the
view, so it isn't that big of a deal for us for those to be unloaded,
and there were so many bugs where there would be pointers into.
Edit:
For your problem in iOS 5.1, viewDidUnload is used to release anything you have made when the view was created, so unless you are creating or retaining objects it in viewDidLoad or your nib, you may not release them in viewDidUnload.
Related
I simply created a new subclass of UIViewController.
Added some UI objects on it in interface builder, and
created outlets for these UI objects and made respective connections.
Then, suddenly, I saw this code generated automatically for me in the
implementation of my ViewController:
- (void)viewDidUnload {
imageView = nil;
scrollView = nil;
[super viewDidUnload];
}
I didn't notice this happening before, was it supposed to happen like this? why?
I don't recall it getting auto-generated, but viewDidUnload is deprecated in iOS 6 so you can just delete it (assuming you're targeting 6.0+).
The purpose of viewDidUnload method is to release the resource whatever you have created in the viewDidLoad method so it is doing exact opposite to the viewDidUnload method . Xcode provides the facility to release the allocated resource automatically so you are finding that code into the viewDidUnload method. For more information you can follow the following link:
viewDidUnload refernce.
It's called when Received memory warning.
- (void)viewDidUnload NS_DEPRECATED_IOS(3_0,6_0); // Called after the view controller's view is released and set to nil. For example, a memory warning which causes the view to be purged. Not invoked as a result of -dealloc.
By the ways, If you want release sth. when recevied memory warning, you can use
- (void)didReceiveMemoryWarning; // Called when the parent application receives a memory warning. On iOS 6.0 it will no longer clear the view by default.
I have a view, which is subclass of UIWebView. It has a property called Contact which is a managed object. The view uses templating engine to create a html with the object and then load into UIWebView. I thought it would be a better idea to monitor the object in the view itself, such that whenever something changes in the object, the view refreshes automatically. So, observed for certain attributes of the managed object in the view itself. And then to avoid the notification coalesce, I have made it such that the reload is done with
[self performSelector:#selector(refresh) afterDelay:0 ].
It refresh the webview automatically whenever it finds the change but also gives some strange crash. The crash says [MyWebView retain] message sent to deallocated object. I know I have properly removed observing values in dealloc method. But, it seems like dealloc gets triggered after a while. I have a strange issue related to releasing the view. The view stays for a while, although the view controller is already released and then releases after may 2/3 seconds. It is really strange. I think the crash is because of this.
Please do suggest me any idea. I will be glad to hear your suggestion. There are something wrong certainly, if anybody could point me I would really be grateful.
Using the delegate design pattern can cause EXC_BAD_ACESS KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS crashes if not used properly. If you have processing that is running in background threads that use the delegate design pattern, where in the object you set SELF as the delegate then you must remove SELF as the delegate in the dealloc method (even under ARC) by setting the delegate reference to nil, or there is a possibility that the object will try to call back into your deallocated object using the delegate design pattern. So if you have something like this in your object.
[_xmlParser setDelegate:self];
you should always have a dealloc method even under ARC to prevent the possibility of a crash in the case where your object gets destroyed while still doing work. It is very common to have your object destroyed while doing work. imagine a UIViewController that shows images from the internet. If you had a FetchImage class that used the delegate design pattern to lookup images that then calls a routine on the object when the lookup finishes, it is easily for the user to pop into and out of your UIViewController while your FetchImage object is still doing work on the background thread. You might not ever notice this when testing, but if you have hundreds of users, some of them will notice because the app will crash when your object tries to call a method on the SELF reference.
If your object uses the delegate design pattern, always have this to cleanup:
#pragma mark - dealloc - cleanup delegate references to prevent callbacks into deallocated objects (EXC_BAD_ACCESS / KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS)
- (void)dealloc
{
[_xmlParser setDelegate:nil];
// for non ARC based code you would also call: [super dealloc];
}
search every class in your project, if you have setDelegate:self or delegate = self then your users are most likely experiencing race condition crashes with your app if you don't have a dealloc cleanup method as described above. If you don't have the dealloc, add it even if you never see crashes when testing. -rrh
Trying to hunt down the cause of crashing on certain devices. I am noticing that my view controllers are receiving didReceiveMemoryWarning, but NOT viewDidUnload. And according to Apple:
you would not use didReceiveMemoryWarning to release references to view objects, you might use it to release any view-related data structures that you did not already release in your viewDidUnload method. (The view objects themselves should always be released in the viewDidUnload method.)
So,
A: Why is viewDidUnload not called? I can't remove my view objects here if it is never called.
B: If I'm not supposed to remove my view objects in didReceiveMemoryWarning, where else would I do this?
C: Using ARC, should I still need to remove view objects, set arrays to nil, etc?
As the other mentioned viewDidUnload: is deprecated in iOS 6. But as additional information you should know, that it is seldom necessary to unload a UIView since iOS 6 is doing its magic thingie in the background -it is destroying the bitmap layer of the backing CALayer of the view (which is by far the biggest "part" of a UIView). If the view is needed again iOS will call drawRect: where you compose your view and everything will be ok.
For more information read this great article of Joe Conway: ViewController lifecycle in iOS 6
viewDidUnload is deprecated in iOS6. You "can" remove views in didReceiveMemoryWarning if you think it is necessary, but it is left up to you.
This thread may help as well.
viewDidUnload no longer called in ios6
didReceiveMemoryWarning is specifically targeted not to the unloading of a view, but rather for the view controller to release objects which can easily be recreated (i.e. UIIamges and the like). You should not release objects in your view unless they can easily be recreated as necessary.
In new iOS 6, viewDidUnload is deprecated and we have been instructed to use didReceiveMemoryWarning instead, to manage objects in UIViewController instances and subclasses. Is it equally effective to assign nils to UIView kinds inside didReceiveMemoryWarning like the way it has been done inside viewDidUnload?
I am asking this because these two methods seems to be working differently. It seems like didReceiveMemoryWarning doesn't guarantee viewDidLoad to be called again to re-instantiate any necessary UIViews.
I suspect with iOS 6, memory management is done without requiring to manually deallocate UIView. Please help me to know what I have missed in understanding the lifecycle of UIViewController.
My preferred method is now the following:
- (void)didReceiveMemoryWarning {
[super didReceiveMemoryWarning];
if (self.isViewLoaded && !self.view.window) {
self.view = nil;
}
// Do additional cleanup if necessary
}
Note that the test self.isViewLoaded is essential, as otherwise accessing the view causes it to load - even the WWDC videos tend to miss that.
If your other references to subviews are weak references, you don't have to nil them out here, otherwise you want to set them to nil, too.
You should get rid of viewDidUnload completely, and every code there should move to appropriate places. It wasn't guaranteed to be called prior to iOS 6 before anyway.
In the iOS reference for viewDidUnload:, it states that this is deprecated for iOS 6 because
Views are no longer purged under low-memory conditions and so this
method is never called
It doesn't say anything about placing this code in didReceiveMemoryWarning:. Since views are no longer purged under low memory conditions, you never have to worry about cleaning up your views in either method.
The answer by Eiko is not correct, and we should NOT set self.view to nil when receiving low memory warning. Doing so is useless and may be harmful.
iOS 6 will automatically freeing bitmaps of views which is not currently displayed, See http://thejoeconwayblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/view-controller-lifecycle-in-ios-6/ for details.
When my iPhone app receives a memory warning the views of UIViewControllers that are not currently visible get unloaded. In one particular controller unloading the view and the outlets is rather fatal.
I'm looking for a way to prevent this view from being unloaded. I find this behavior rather stupid - I have a cache mechanism, so when a memory warning comes - I unload myself tons of data and I free enough memory, but I definitely need this view untouched.
I see UIViewController has a method unloadViewIfReloadable, which gets called when the memory warning comes. Does anybody know how to tell Cocoa Touch that my view is not reloadable?
Any other suggestions how to prevent my view from being unloaded on memory warning?
Thanks in advance
Apple docs about the view life cycle of a view controller says:
didReceiveMemoryWarning - The default
implementation releases the view only
if it determines that it is safe to do
so
Now ... I override the didReceiveMemoryWarning with an empty function which just calls NSLog to let me know a warning was received. However - the view gets unloaded anyway. Plus, on what criteria exactly is decided whether a view is safe to unload ... oh ! so many questions!
According to the docs, the default implementation of didReceiveMemoryWarning: releases the view if it is safe to do (ie: superview==nil).
To prevent the view from being released you could override didReceiveMemoryWarning: but in your implementation do not call [super didReceiveMemoryWarning]. That's where the view is released by default (if not visible).
The default didReceiveMemoryWarning releases the view by calling [viewcontroller setView:nil], so you could override that instead.
What appears to be working for me was to override setView: to ignore setting to nil. It's kludgy, but then, this is a kludgy issue, and this did the trick:
-(void)setView:(UIView*)view {
if(view != nil || self.okayToUnloadView) {
[super setView:view];
}
}
Could it be so simple?
Even though nowhere in the documentation this is mentioned, it seems that if I exclusively retain my view in viewDidLoad, then it does not get released on Memory Warning. I tried with several consecutive warnings in the simulator and all still seem good.
So ... the trick for the moment is "retain" in viewDidLoad, and a release in dealloc - this way the viewcontroller is "stuck" with the view until the time it needs to be released.
I'll test some more, and write about the results
I don't think any of these ideas work. I tried overriding [didReceiveMemoryWarning], and that worked for some phones, but found one phone unloaded the view BEFORE that method was even called (must have been in extremely low memory or something). Overriding [setView] produces loads of log warnings so I wouldn't risk that by Apple. Retaining the view will just leak that view - it'll prevent crashes but not really work - the view will replaced next time the controllers UI is loaded.
So really you've just got to plan on your views being unloaded any time they're off-screen, which is not ideal but there you go. The best patterns I've found to work with this are immediate commit so your UI is always up-to-date, or copy-edit-copy, where you copy your model to a temporary instance, populate your views and use immediate commit with that instance, then copy the changes back to your original model when the user hits 'save' or whatever.
Because the accepted solution has problems with viewDidUnload still getting called even though the view was blocked from being cleared, I'm using a different though still fragile approach. The system unloads the view using an unloadViewForced: message to the controller so I'm intercepting that to block the message. This prevents the confused call to viewDidUnload. Here's the code:
#interface UIViewController (Private)
- (void)unloadViewForced:(BOOL)forced;
#end
- (void)unloadViewForced:(BOOL)forced {
if (!_safeToUnloadView) {
return;
}
[super unloadViewForced:forced];
}
This has obvious problems since it's intercepting an undocumented message in UIViewController.
progrmr posted an answer above which recommends intercepting didReceiveMemoryWarning instead. Based on the stack traces I've seen, intercepting that should also work. I haven't tried that route though because I'm concerned there may be other memory cleanup which would also be blocked (such as causing it to not call child view controllers with the memory warning message).