~ Will ARC always release an object the line after the last strong pointer is removed? Or is it undetermined and at some unspecified point in the future it will be released? Similarly, assuming that you don't change anything with your program, will ARC always be the same each time you run and compile your program?
~ How do you deal with handing an object off to other classes? For example, suppose we are creating a Cake object in a Bakery class. This process would probably take a long time and involve many different methods, so it may be reasonable for us to put the cake in a strong property. Now suppose we want to hand this cake object off to a customer. The customer would also probably want to have a strong pointer to it. Is this ok? Having two classes with strong pointers to the same object? Or should we nil out the Bakery's pointer as soon as we hand off?
Your code should be structured so the answer to this doesn't matter - if you want to use an object, keep a pointer to it, don't rely on ARC side effects to keep it around :) And these side effects might change with different compilers.
Two strong pointers is absolutely fine. ARC will only release the object when both pointers are pointing to something else (or nothing!)
ARC will implement the proper retains and releases at compile time. It will not behave any different than if you put them in there yourself so it will always do the same compilation and to answer your question should always behave the same. But that said it does not mean that your object will always be released immediately after the pointer is removed. Because you never call dealloc directly in any form of objective C you are only telling it that there is no reference count and that it is safe to release. This usually means that it will be released right away though.
If you pass an object from one class to another and the receiving class has a strong property associated with it and the class that passes it off eventually nils its pointer it will still have a reference count of at least 1 and will be fine.
Ok, first this answer might helpt you also a little bit: ARC equivalent of autorelease?
Generally after the last strong variable is nilled, the object is released immediately. If you store it in a property, you can nil the property, assign it to something like __strong Foo *temp = self.bar; before you nil, and return that local __strong variable (although arc normally detects the return, and inferes the __strong byitself).
Some more details on that: Handling Pointer-to-Pointer Ownership Issues in ARC
DeanWombourne's answer is correct; but to add to (1).
In particular, the compiler may significantly re-order statements as a part of optimization. While method calls will always occur in the order written in code (because any method call may have side effects), any atomic expression may be re-ordered by the compiler as long as that re-order doesn't impact behavior. Same thing goes for local variable re-use, etc...
Thus, the ARC compiler will guarantee that a pointer is valid for as long as it is needed, no more. But there is no guarantee when the pointed to object might be released other than that it isn't going to happen beyond the scope of declaration. There is also no guarantee that object A is released before B simply because A is declared and last used before B.
IN other words, as long as you write your code without relying on side effects and race conditions, it should all just work.
Please keep you code proper as it has diffrent behaviour on diffrent complier.
Related
I am working on an app where I am presenting 100 sentences using AVAudioplayer. Rather than have 100 AVAudioplayer objects I wanted to just have one property and change the object associated with it on the fly. My code boils down to the following (though the lines arent immediately following each other in the actual code):
self.thePlayer = [[AVAudioPlayer alloc] initWithContentsOfURL:url1 error:&error];
self.thePlayer = [[AVAudioPlayer alloc] initWithContentsOfURL:url2 error:&error];
Does the object initialized with url1 get released when thePlayer is allocated and initialized a second time with url2, or are both objects only released when the view is dismissed? As I am dealing with 100 sound files I don't want them all hanging around in memory. I'm using ARC
Thanks in advance
In your specific case, guessing at what your code likely includes, the objects will probably be deallocated when you want them to be. That's a lot of "guessing," "likely," and "probably." You really need to understand how the memory management works in order to reason about it.
If the AVAudioPlayer is strongly referenced by anything else, then it won't be released until those strong references are gone. In other words, setting thePlayer won't deallocate the player if something else has a strong reference to it. (That "something" may be some part of the system frameworks, or even itself in some rare cases. It doesn't have to be your code.)
If the AVAudioPlayer has pending autorelease calls on it, then it won't be released until the autorelease pool drains (usually at the end of event loop, which basically means "when your method that UIKit called returns.") For example, if you create a large number of objects in a loop and immediately throw them away, they may or may not be deallocated until the autorelease pool drains. Again, autoreleases may be injected by system frameworks. In practice, this means that the object will usually be deallocated "soon" (in a small fraction of a second), but not necessarily immediately. You can clean up autoreleased objects sooner by using #autoreleasepool blocks, which is sometimes necessary if you create many temporary objects in a loop. This is not needed very often.
But to a first-order approximation, in many of the most common cases, yes, replacing the property will automatically and immediately deallocate the previous object.
It would be useful to show how you declared thePlayer. If they are synthesized properly the memory management would be handled automatically. It appears that you are using "self" to access thePlayer and if so you'd be setting the value through a setter/getter and that would handle the memory management for you. But I also notice that "Self" is capitalized and should not be in order to properly use the setter/getter. For more info on synthesized variables check out: What exactly does #synthesize do?. Note there are some places where you should NOT use self and this link discusses that: How does an underscore in front of a variable in a cocoa objective-c class work?.
According to Cocoa's "Create Rule" a method that returns a newly instantiated object must begin with either new, create, or copy if ownership is transferred to the caller.
Let's say I have a class that implements a factory method called (NSObject *)getCorrectObject.
This method will return a new instance of the correct subclass of the callee (determined by some internal state of the callee). Technically this method does not follow the "Create Rule" and could lead to memory leaks in non-ARC environments.
Would it be possible to instead use (NSObject *__autoreleasing)getCorrectObject to avoid using new or create in this case?
In non-ARC I would return an autoreleased object, but I'm not entirely sure if __autoreleasing works for anything other than In/Out parameters.
According to Cocoa's "Create Rule" a method that returns a newly instantiated object must begin with either new, create, or copy if ownership is transferred to the caller.
This isn't called the Create Rule (and isn't correct). The Create Rule is a Core Foundation rule related to the words Create and Copy. Cocoa has a different rule related to “alloc”, “new”, “copy”, or “mutableCopy”.
Let's say I have a class that implements a factory method called (NSObject *)getCorrectObject.
Then it would be incorrectly named. Starting a method with get indicates that it returns a value by reference. The correct signature would be:
+ (BOOL)getCorrectObject(NSObject**)result;
This method will return a new instance of the correct subclass of the callee (determined by some internal state of the callee). Technically this method does not follow the "Create Rule" and could lead to memory leaks in non-ARC environments.
That is not based on whether it is a new instance. It's based on whether it includes an unbalanced retain.
Methods that begin with “alloc”, “new”, “copy”, or “mutableCopy” should return an object with one unbalanced retain. Other methods should return an object that has an equal number of retain and autorelease attached to it.
If for some reason you have to violate these naming rules (and you really don't want to violate these rules), the correct way to indicate it to ARC is by using NS_RETURNS_RETAINED (see Foundation/NSObjCRuntime.h for all the macros). This only assists ARC in correctly fixing your memory management when dealing with mixed ARC/Retain code in cases where it is impossible to fix your incorrect naming. Pure ARC code doesn't need this; it'll balance out either way. Pure Retain code won't be helped by this. The caller has to do the right thing (and so has to just know that you did it wrong and compensate).
Note that as long as you're using ARC throughout the project (and you really, really should be), most of this won't matter a lot in practice. ARC will balance everything out for you pretty much no matter what you name things, since you're not in charge of adding the retains, releases, and autoreleases anyway.
I am trying to convert an iOS project into ARC.
I am using the compiler flag for some of the files.
But one of the files contains a variable declared within a method like the following:
aClass **obj;
With ARC turned off, it gives an error:
"pointer to non-const type without explicit ownership"
I could silence the warning by doing this:
aClass *__strong* obj;
Which I believe is not a good practice as far as ownership is concerned.
But the error didn't exist in non-ARC environment.
My question is simply as follows:
How would I change from non-ARC to ARC setup the declaration of the object without having to use *__strong*?
i.e., how could I declare (or make changes to declaring) aClass **obj under ARC without have to use *__strong*, which I am sure I have read somewhere it is not a good practice to do but I forgot where I read it.
And:
Why didn't it give error under non-ARC environment.
TL;DR: You probably don't want a pointer to a pointer unless you can avoid it. It's pretty poor design to do so under a system where memory is managed for you. This answer explains more: Pointer to a pointer in objective-c?.
More Details
Under non-ARC, the system leaves retain/release up to you so it doesn't matter who owns a pointer. You, the programmer, owns it. In ARC land, the system needs to know when to retain or release, and it can't always infer which class/object has ownership over a particular object. Other classes may need the reference but the class that declared it is done with the object already. Basically, the __strong tells the declaring class that it should be in charge of managing the pointer. It 'overrides' the ownership of the pointer in a way. So that's a way to get around it. The best way to get around it would be to refactor the code to not use explicitly managed memory, but how you've fixed it will work if that's not possible/too hard.
In a non ARC Objective C environment, I understand why we have to release an object: to free the memory allocated for it; I understand why we have to set it to nil afterwards (if we are sure nothing else needs the instance / nothing else still has a hold on the object): to avoid dangling pointers.
However my question is, if all objects release their hold on an object, "carInstance" for example, resulting in its reference count going down to 0, why oh why does that Not automatically make it nil?
If reference count is now 0, is the object still usable in any way? Or is this just one of those things we have to do just because that's how not having garbage collection works (can't be, there must be a reason)
The simple answer is that the manual memory management model that was used pre-ARC is lightweight and simple. The behavior you are wishing for is the behavior you get with weak pointers under ARC; and it requires extra work by the OS, to track weak pointers and nil them out when the object is reclaimed. It's doable, clearly, but the cost of implementing it, as well as the computational overhead, wasn't deemed worthwhile until Apple was already rolling out the extra work of implementing ARC.
After an object is deallocated, the dangling pointer is worse than useless: it is downright dangerous. Referencing it while it points to unallocated memory produces an exception; referencing it after it is randomly reassigned to another object or some other memory allocation will typically produce an 'object does not respond to selector' error.
I have a C++-object obj which I want to access within a block:
MyCppClass obj;
void(^myBlock)() = ^{
obj.test();
};
The problem here is that obj gets copied into the block, but I want to use a reference to the original object. I could use a pointer instead:
MyCppClass obj;
MyCppClass *objP = &obj;
void(^myBlock)() = ^{
objP->test();
};
But I think dereferencing pointers takes more time than using references. (Performance is critical, because in my project such a block is called for each pixel of a large image.)
How can I access the object within the block?
Dereferencing a pointer is faster than a function call or a C++ method call,which involves several pointer dereferences to look up the method in the class, and then an actual function call, which actually allocates memory on the stack, saves away some registers to RAM, and then does the reverse when it returns. So don't worry about performance here. If the profiler shows you that a single pointer de-reference causes performance issues, you have bigger problems, and you should probably drop down to hand-crafted assembler, and forget using C++ classes or blocks. Also, it's a very rare thing.
Use a pointer, or a C++ reference (the latter is the same under the hood, but it's harder to shoot yourself in the foot with it, and code stays more readable). Just keep in mind that this is only a solution if you are going to use the block in the same function as (or a function called by) the current function.
Because the C++ object is on the stack, it will go away, so if whoever you hand the block to copies it and calls it later, the pointer will be invalid. In the best case you will crash. In the worst case, the spot on the RAM chip that was used for that object is already in use for something else again, and you'll overwrite some other bit of memory, and cause a seemingly unrelated crash.
So, if you want to keep the block around, you'll have to do 'objP = new MyCppClass' to create the object, and later do 'delete objP' (maybe in the last call to the block, if you can detect that and don't need the object after that) to get rid of it.