my.h file
#interface myObject : NSObject {
NSMutableDictionary *myDictn ;
}
i have a property
#property (nonatomic,retain) NSMutableDictionary *myDictn ;
then in .m File
i have a allocated it from id
- (id)init {
if (self=[super init]) {
myDictn= [NSMutableDictionary alloc]init];
}
}
my Question is i have mentioned Retain in Property and i have allocated memory also (is Retain Count goes to 2 in (id)init )
so how to manage memory in this case ?
i am new to this so dnt have much idea regarding memory management .
one more thing if i have a method x in my code and i also allocated memory to myDictn then in that case also how can i use release .??
Thanks in Advance .
The proper way to initialize a retained property is:
NSMutableDictionary *newDict = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init];
self.myDictn = newDict;
[newDict release];
or alternatively:
self.myDict = [NSMutableDictionary dictionary];
The first method makes sure not to increase the already retained property's retain count by performing alloc,init (an action that increments retain count) on a temporary object.
The second method uses a convenience method for obtaining an autoreleased instance of the dictionary.
You should first refer to Cocoa Fundamentals Guide. Then, if you're targeting iOS > 4.3, you can rely on Automatic Reference Counting for memory management. But be sure to understand the base concepts and read the fundamental guide or you'll waste a lot of time programming in the dark.
Related
Here is code I am referring to.
// Person.h
#interface Person : NSObject {
NSString *firstName;
NSString *lastName;
}
#end
// Person.m
#implementation Person
- (id)init {
if (![super init]) return nil;
firstName = #"John";
lastName = #"Doe";
}
#end
// MyClass.m
#implementation MyClass
.....
- (NSArray *)getPeople {
NSMutableArray *array = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Person *p = [[Person alloc] init];
[array addObject:p];
}
return array;
}
.....
#end
Now, I know there is no memory-management going on in this sample code. What would be required?
In the getPeople loop, I am alloc'ing a Person (retainCount 1), then adding it to array. The retain count is now 2, right? If it is two, should I be [p release]'ing after adding it to the array, bringing the retainCount back down to 1?
Am I right in that it is the caller's responsibility to release the array returned by the method? (Which would also free the memory of the Person's, and their instance variables, assuming their counts are at 1).
I have read Apple's memory management document, but I guess what I am most unclear about, is what increases an objects retain count? I think I grasp the idea of who's responsibility it is to release, though. This is the fundamental rule, according to Apple:
You take ownership of an object if you create it using a method whose name begins with “alloc” or “new” or contains “copy” (for example, alloc, newObject, or mutableCopy), or if you send it a retain message. You are responsible for relinquishing ownership of objects you own using release or autorelease. Any other time you receive an object, you must not release it.
bobDevil's sentence "only worry about the retain counts you add to the item explicitly" made it click for me. After reading the Ownership policy at Apple, essentially, the object/method that created the new object, is the one responsible for releasing /it's/ interest in it. Is this correct?
Now, let's say I a method, that receives an object, and assigns it to a instance variable. I need to retain the received object correct, as I still have an interest in it?
If any of this is incorrect, let me know.
You are correct that the retain count is 2 after adding it to an array. However, you should only worry about the retain counts you add to the item explicitly.
Retaining an object is a contract that says "I'm not done with you, don't go away." A basic rule of thumb (there are exceptions, but they are usually documented) is that you own the object when you alloc an object, or create a copy. This means you're given the object with a retain count of 1(not autoreleased). In those two cases, you should release it when you are done. Additionally, if you ever explicitly retain an object, you must release it.
So, to be specific to your example, when you create the Person, you have one retain count on it. You add it to an array (which does whatever with it, you don't care) and then you're done with the Person, so you release it:
Person *p = [[Person alloc] init]; //retain 1, for you
[array addObject:p]; //array deals with p however it wants
[p release]; //you're done, so release it
Also, as I said above, you only own the object during alloc or copy generally, so to be consistent with that on the other side of things, you should return the array autoreleased, so that the caller of the getPeople method does not own it.
return [array autorelease];
Edit:
Correct, if you create it, you must release it. If you invest interest in it (through retain) you must release it.
Retain counts are increased when you call alloc specifically, so you'll need to release that explicitly.
factory methods usually give you an autoreleased object (such as [NSMutableArray array] -- you would have to specifically retain this to keep it around for any length of time.).
As far as NSArray and NSMutableArray addObject:, someone else will have to comment. I believe that you treat a classes as black boxes in terms of how they handle their own memory management as a design pattern, so you would never explicitly release something that you have passed into NSArray. When it gets destroyed, its supposed to handle decrementing the retain count itself.
You can also get a somewhat implicit retain if you declare your ivars as properties like #property (retain) suchAndSuchIvar, and use #synthesize in your implementation. Synthesize basically creates setters and getters for you, and if you call out (retain) specifically, the setter is going to retain the object passed in to it. Its not always immediately obvious, because the setters can be structured like this:
Person fart = [[Person alloc] init];
fart.firstName = #"Josh"; // this is actually a setter, not accessing the ivar
// equivalent to [fart setFirstName: #"Josh"], such that
// retainCount++
Edit:
And as far as the memory management, as soon as you add the object to the array, you're done with it... so:
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Person *p = [[Person alloc] init];
[array addObject:p];
[p release];
}
Josh
You should generally /not/ be worried about the retain count. That's internally implemented. You should only care about whether you want to "own" an object by retaining it. In the code above, the array should own the object, not you (outside of the loop you don't even have reference to it except through the array). Because you own [[Person alloc] init], you then have to release it.
Thus
Person *p = [[Person alloc] init];
[array addObject:p];
[p release];
Also, the caller of "getPeople" should not own the array. This is the convention. You should autorelease it first.
NSMutableArray *array = [[[NSMutableArray alloc] init] autorelease];
You'll want to read Apple's documentation on memory management: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/MemoryMgmt/MemoryMgmt.html
Until yesterday I thought I understood how properties memory management works, but then I ran an "Analize" task with XCode and got plenty of "This object is not own here". Here is a simple example that describes my problem :
MyObservingObject.h:
#interface MyObservingObject : NSObject
#property(nonatomic, retain) NSMutableDictionary *observedDictionary;
-(id)initWithDictCapacity:(int)capacity;
#end
MyObservingObject.m:
#synthesize observedDictionary;
-(id)initWithDictCapacity:(int)capacity {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.observedDictionary = [[[NSMutableDictionary alloc] initWithCapacity:capacity] autorelease];
}
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc {
// The following line makes the Analize action say :
// "Incorrect decrement of the reference count of an object that is not owned at this point by the caller"
[self.observedDictionary release], self.observedDictionary=nil;
[super dealloc];
}
What I don't understand is Why should I leave this property without calling release on it? My #property is set as retain (copy does the same), so when I'm doing self.myRetainProperty = X, then X got its retain count increased (it's owned by self), didn't it ?
You should let the setter do the releasing for you, so remove the call to release in dealloc:
- (void)dealloc {
self.observedDictionary=nil;
[super dealloc];
}
This is because the setter will be synthensized to something like:
- (void)setObject:(id)object
{
[object retain];
[_object release];
_object = object;
}
Which will work as desired when you pass in nil.
It did get increased, but when you set it to nil, the setter method first releases the backing instance variable, and only then does it retain and assign the new value. Thus setting the property to nil is enough, setting the ivar to nil leaks memory, though.
For your better understanding: the typical implementation of an autogenerated retaining setter is equivalent to something like
- (void)setFoo:(id)foo
{
if (_foo != foo) {
[_foo release];
_foo = [foo retain];
}
}
Also note that, as a consequence, you should never release properties like this. If you do so, the backing ivar may be deallocated, and messaging it (release by the accessor when setting the property to nil afterwards) can crash.
You don't need to do
[self.observedDictionary release]
before
self.observedDictionary=nil;
This is enough, because this is a property, and it will automatically send release to previous value
self.observedDictionary=nil;
The reason for the compiler warning is because of the way you are retrieving the object.
By calling
[self.observedDictionary release];
you are in fact going through the accessor method defined as
- (NSDictionary *)observedDictionary;
This returns your object but due to the naming of observedDictionary the compiler assumes that there is no transfer of ownership e.g. the callee will not have to release this object unless they take a further retain. It is because of this that the compiler thinks you are going to do an overrelease by releasing an object that you don't actually own.
More specifically the convention for method names that transfer ownership is for them to start with copy, mutableCopy, alloc or new.
Some examples
Here I have used a name that does not imply transfer for ownership so I get a warning
- (id)object;
{
return [[NSObject alloc] init];
}
//=> Object leaked: allocated object is returned from a method whose name ('object') does not start with 'copy', 'mutableCopy', 'alloc' or 'new'. This violates the naming convention rules given in the Memory Management Guide for Cocoa
Fix 1: (don't transfer ownership)
- (id)object;
{
return [[[NSObject alloc] init] autorelease];
}
Fix 2: (make the name more appropriate)
- (id)newObject;
{
return [[NSObject alloc] init];
}
With this knowledge we can of naming convention we can see that the below is wrong because we do not own the returned object
[self.object release]; //=> Produced warnings
And to show a final example - releasing an object that implies ownership transfer with it's name
[self.newObject release]; //=> No Warning
Given the following simple implementation:
#implementation RTUDeallocLogger
-(void)dealloc
{
NSLog(#"deallocated");
}
#end
we run the following code under ARC:
#implementation RTURunner
{
NSArray* arr;
}
-(void)run{
arr = [NSArray
arrayWithObjects:[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc]init],
[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc]init],
[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc]init],
nil];
NSLog(#"nulling arr");
arr = NULL;
NSLog(#"finished nulling");
}
#end
we get the following log output:
nulling arr
finished nulling
deallocated
deallocated
deallocated
I'd like to perform an action after all the deallocations have finished. Is this possible?
The aim of this question is really to understand a little more about the mechanics of ARC, in particular, at what point ARC triggers these deallocations, and whether or not this can ever happen synchronously when I drop references.
-dealloc is always synchronous, and occurs when the last strong reference is removed. In the case of your code though, +arrayWithObjects: is likely (if compiled at -O0 at least) putting the array in the autorelease pool, so the last strong reference is removed when the pool drains, not when you set the variable to NULL (you should use nil for ObjC objects, btw).
You can likely avoid having the object in the autorelease pool by using alloc/init to create, and you may (implementation detail, bla bla) be able to avoid it by compiling with optimizations turned on. You can also use #autoreleasepool { } to introduce an inner pool and bound the lifetime that way.
If I were an engineer from Apple I'd probably argue that your problem is probably your design. There are almost no reasons you'd want effectively to act by watching dealloc rather than having dealloc itself act.
[a huge edit follows: weak properties don't go through the normal property mechanisms, so they aren't KVO compliant, including for internal implicit KVO as originally proposed]
That said, what you can do is bind the lifetime of two objects together via object associations and use the dealloc of the latter as a call-out on the dealloc of the former.
So, e.g.
#import <objc/runtime.h>
#interface DeallocNotifier;
- (id)initWithObject:(id)object target:(id)target action:(SEL)action;
#end
#implementation DeallocNotifier
- (id)initWithObject:(id)object target:(id)target action:(SEL)action
{
... blah ...
// we'll use a static int even though we'll never access by this key again
// to definitely ensure no potential collisions from lazy patterns
static int anyOldKeyWellNeverUseAgain;
objc_setAssociatedObject(object, &anyOldKeyWellNeverUseAgain, self, OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN);
... blah ...
}
- (void)dealloc
{
[_target performSelector:_action];
}
#end
-(void)run{
arr = ...
[[DeallocNotifier alloc]
initWithObject:arr target:self action:#selector(arrayDidDealloc)];
/* you may not even need *arr in this case; I'm unclear as
to why you have an instance variable for something you don't
want to keep, so I guess it'll depend on your code */
} // end of run
- (void)arrayDidDealloc
{
NSLog(#"array was deallocated");
}
I've assumed you're able to tie the lifecycle of all the objects you're interested in to that of a single container; otherwise you could associate the notifier to all relevant objects.
The array has definitely gone by the time you get arrayDidDealloc.
at what point ARC triggers these deallocations
ARC inserts allocations/deallocations into your code based on static analysis. You can see where it does this by looking at the assembly of your source -- go to Product -> Generate Output in Xcode.
whether or not this can ever happen synchronously when I drop references
Retain/release/autorelease is always synchronous.
Your code
arr = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc] init],
[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc] init],
[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc] init],
nil];
will be implicitly placing the objects into an autorelease pool. After the object is allocated, you don't want it retained (because the NSArray will do the retain once it receives the object), but you can't release it immediately, otherwise it will never make it to the NSArray alive. This is the purpose of autorelease - to cover the case where the object would otherwise be in limbo between two owners.
The retain count at alloc time is 1, then it's retained by the autoreleasepool and released by you, so the retain count remains 1. Then, it's retained by the NSArray, so the retain count becomes 2.
Later, the NSArray is released and so the retain count returns to 1, and the objects are finally cleaned up when the autorelease pool gets its chance to run.
You can make the autorelease act faster by nesting another pool - by wrapping your NSArray creation with an #autorelease{} clause.
I'm trying to switch views in my app using this chunk of code:
self->variable1 = [[NSNumber alloc] initWithInt:0];
self->variable2 = [[NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:1];
self->variable3 = [[NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:1];
[self presentModalViewController:titleScreen animated:YES];
If I comment out all of the allocated variable lines, the code works fine. If it leave just 1 line in the code crashes with the "EXC_BAD_ACCESS" error. Why is this happening? The variables aren't being used at all, just declared for later use. I'm not getting any compile errors on the lines either. What am I doing wrong?
UPDATE:
Thank you everyone for the help. I change the way I declare my variables to #property/#synth to clean up my code, but it didn't fix the problem. After a long time of fiddling I fixed it. I changed the code from this:
self.variable1 = [[NSNumber alloc] initWithInt:0];
to this:
self.variable1 = [NSNumber alloc];
[self.variable1 initWithInt:0];
and it worked! Can someone explain why this worked and the first line didn't?
Update:
Thank you Peter Hosey for showing me my evil ways. This time I'm pretty sure it's fixed. I was storing my variable Releases in
-(void)release
I didn't realize xCode will release when it needs to. I moved all the variable releases to
-(void)Destroy
so I can release everything on MY command. Now the code works. Thanks again!
I suggest that you declare variable1, variable2, and variable3 as properties, not instance variables. Then, use self.variable1, self.variable2, and self.variable3 to access them.
The dot syntax (self.variable1, etc.) uses the memory management policy you declared on each property; the arrow syntax (self->variable1, etc.) will access the variables directly. The crash is because you created two arrays in away that doesn't leave you owning them, and then did not assign the arrays to a property that would retain them.
You may also want to upgrade your project to use ARC. Then there is no memory-management difference; assigning to the instance variables rather than the properties will not cause the object to be prematurely released, because ARC considers instance variables to be ownerships by default. You may still want to switch to using properties after you switch to ARC, but not to prevent a crash.
In response to your edit:
I change the way I declare my variables to #property/#synth to clean up my code, but it didn't fix the problem.
Then something else was wrong.
You never did say much about the problem itself. You said you got an EXC_BAD_ACCESS, but not what statement triggered the crash or on what grounds you blamed it on the code you showed.
I changed the code from this:
self.variable1 = [[NSNumber alloc] initWithInt:0];
That's the correct code, though. That's what you should be using.
to this:
self.variable1 = [NSNumber alloc];
[self.variable1 initWithInt:0];
Noooo! That code is wrong, wrong, wrong, on multiple levels.
init methods (including initWithWhatever: methods) are not guaranteed to return the same object you sent the message to. NSNumber's initWithInt: very probably doesn't.
That object creates an uninitialized NSNumber object and assigns that to the property. Then it sends initWithInt: to that object, which will return an initialized object, which can be and very probably will be a different object. Now you are holding an uninitialized object (which you will try to use later) and have dropped the initialized object on the floor.
Never, ever, ever send alloc and init(With…) in separate expressions. Always send them in the same expression. No exceptions. Otherwise, you risk holding the uninitialized object rather than the initialized object. In your case (with NSNumbers), that is almost certainly what will happen.
What you should be doing is declaring and synthesizing a strong property that owns the NSNumber object, and creating the NSNumber object in a single statement: either [[NSNumber alloc] initWithInt:] or [NSNumber numberWithInt:]. If you're not using ARC, you'll want the latter, since the property will retain the object. If you are using ARC, they're effectively equivalent.
And if you get a crash with that code, then something else is wrong, so please tell us—either in this question or in a new question—about the crash so we can help you find the true cause of it.
variable2 and variable3 are being autoreleased before you actually access them (presumably) later after presenting the modal view.
At the very least change the lines to:
self->variable2 = [[NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:1] retain];
self->variable3 = [[NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:1] retain];
or
self->variable2 = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithCapacity:1];
self->variable3 = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithCapacity:1];
variable1 should be fine.
Best would be to use #property and #synthesize so you can use dot notation:
.h
#interface MyClass : SuperClass
#property (nonatomic,retain) NSMutableArray *variable2;
#property (nonatomic,retain) NSMutableArray *variable3;
#end
.m
#implementation MyClass
#synthesize variable2,varible3;
- (void)foo {
self.variable2 = [NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:1];
self.variable3 = [NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:1];
}
#end
By default, all instance variables in objective-c have protected scope. So unless you have explicitly declared them public in your interface file as:
#interface MYClass {
#public
NSNumber *variable1;
NSMutableArray *variable2;
NSMutableArray *variable3;
}
//...
#end
then they will not be accessible using the struct dereferencing operator. This is likely the cause of those EXC_BAD_ACCESS errors.
I am trying to create an NSMutableArray using arrayWithArray, add two objects, sort, and store to an ivar as an NSArray. My code looks like this:
NSMutableArray *_mutableItems = [NSMutableArray arrayWithArray:[self.mainViewController.someDictionary allKeys]];
[_mutableItems addObject:#"Buildings"];
[_mutableItems addObject:#"Parking"];
self.curItems = [_mutableItems sortedArrayUsingSelector:#selector(localizedCaseInsensitiveCompare:)];
When I profile the app I get a memory leak for an NSArray after the view is popped. But what I don't understand is: aren't all of these objects autoreleased? Am I increasing the retain count when I assign it to the instance property?
Yes, setting the property is probably increasing the retain count. Specifically, _mutableItems will be autoreleased, but the array you create with sortedArrayUsingSelectoris retained by the property.
Does your property declaration include retain or copy?
#property (retain) NSArray *curItems;
If so, in your class dealloc method, make sure you call release on the array;
- (void)dealloc {
[curItems release];
[super dealloc];
}