i'm a little bit confused with memory management in view controllers.
Lets say i have header file like this:
#interface MyController : UIViewController {
NSMutableArray *data;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray *data;
#end
and .m file looks like that:
#implementation MyController
#synthesize data;
- (void)dealloc
{
[self.data release];
[super dealloc];
}
- (void)viewDidLoad
{
[super viewDidLoad];
if (self.data == nil)
self.data = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
}
- (void)viewDidUnload
{
[super viewDidUnload];
[self.data release];
self.data = nil;
}
Is that ok from the correct memory management point of view? Will that work after dealloc via Memory Warning? How You do that in your apps?
Thanks for your answers ;)
While the alloc-retain calls balance out in viewDidLoad and viewDidUnload and should prove no problem memory-wise, it would be cleaner to take ownership only once and relinquishing it once rather than twice.
- (void)viewDidLoad
{
[super viewDidLoad];
if (self.data == nil)
self.data = [NSMutableArray array];
}
and
- (void)viewDidUnload
{
[super viewDidUnload];
self.data = nil;
}
You are not guaranteed that viewDidUnload will ever get called. Unlike init/dealloc, which get called in pairs, viewDidUnload is undeterministically called. viewDidUnload is only called if there is a low memory situation and your view is not the active view.
Depending on how your model is created and the implications of it remaining in memory, it may make more sense for you not to get rid of it. An example of this may be that recreating that data may involve an expensive web service call. It therefore would be a bad user experience to have to wait for that data to get recreated. If it must absolutely go, a better strategy may be to cache the data to disk so that you can easily reconstruct it.
viewDidUnload should only contain cleaning up your IBOutlets and flushing easily recreatable data.
These lines from -viewDidUnload both release data:
[self.data release];
self.data = nil;
Since you're using the property setter in the second line, and data is a retained property, the setter will release data. This is an over-release, and it'll cause a crash either right away or later, depending on whether other objects also retain that object. To fix, simply delete the first line and rely on the setter to do the right thing.
The -dealloc method, on the other hand, shouldn't use the setter as it does now. You should change:
[self.data release];
to:
[data release];
data = nil; // this line isn't strictly necessary, but often considered good form
The reasoning here is that it's conceivable that this class could be subclassed, and someone might override the property setter in such a way that it has some side effects that could cause problems when the object is being deallocated. You should access the ivar directly -- notice that I left off the "self." so that we're dealing with the ivar and not the property accessor. (-init and -dealloc are the only places where you have to worry about that; use the property accessors everywhere else.)
Related
I have a method called in various places called "cancelAllPendingDownloads"
This is a general method that cancels various jobs and updates internal counters.
Problem happens when it is called within the dealloc method
-(void)dealloc
{
[self cancelAllPendingDownloads]; // want to cancel some jobs
}
-(void)cancelAllPendingDownloads // updates some internals
{
__weak __typeof__(self) weakSelf = self; // This line gets a EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION error in runtime
for(Download *dl in self.downloads)
{
dl.completionHandler = ^{ // want to replace the previous block
weakSelf.dlcounter--;
}
[dl cancel];
}
}
Not sure why it fails in the dealloc method as "self" still exists
When I change the code to
__typeof__(self) strongSelf = self; //everything works fine
__weak __typeof__(self) weakSelf = strongSelf; (or "self") BAD_INSTRUCTION error
The error happens on the second line
Just to make the "you are not supposed" or "You can't" part of the other good answers
more precise:
The runtime function for storing a weak reference is objc_storeWeak(), and the
Clang/ARC documentation states:
id objc_storeWeak(id *object, id value);
...
If value is a null pointer or the object to which it points has begun
deallocation, object is assigned null and unregistered as a __weak
object. Otherwise, object is registered as a __weak object or has its
registration updated to point to value.
Since the self object has already begun deallocation, weakSelf should be set to NULL
(and therefore is not of any use).
However, there seems to be a bug (as discussed here http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/cocoa/312530-cannot-form-weak-reference-to.html)
that objc_storeWeak() crashes in this case, instead of returning NULL.
If an object is in dealloc state, you are not supposed to create any new references to it. Consider the object as already destroyed. Don't use it in a callback/delegate any more.
Note that dlcounter won't ever be read. Just cancel the connections without reading the results.
TL;DR
- How can I reference __weak self in dealloc method?
- Don't reference it.
You can't initialize a week (or a strong) reference to self in the dealloc method and use it elsewhere - it's too late, the object will be inevitably destroyed.
However, you might try this:
-(void)dealloc
{
NSArray* localDownloads = self.downloads;
for(Download* dl in localDownloads) {
[dl cancel];
}
}
It should be clear that there are better places to invoke cancellation, for example, in a view controller, you may override viewWillDisappear:.
I am assuming you are using ARC for your project.
Straight from Apple:
Apple Talked about Weak and Strong
__strong is the default. An object remains “alive” as long as
there is a strong pointer to it.
__weak specifies a reference that does not keep the referenced object alive.
A weak reference is set to nil when there are no strong references to the object.
This is an Article Explaining Dealloc:
Dealloc Method Explained and More
This method will be called after the final release of the object
but before it is deallocated or any of its instance variables are destroyed.
The superclass’s implementation of dealloc will be called automatically when
the method returns.
After this being pointed out... I highly recommend you revise your code design because there is no reason for you to call a weak typeof(self) to solve your problem of cancelling those downloads at dealloc or any type of deallocing that involves _weak_typeof__self for that matter.
What I can recommend though is that that class that you are trying to cancel those downloads frin, make it keep track of those downloads with a Download UniqueID and just stop them or delete them at dealloc. Its simpler and easier to manage rather than that wierd call to __weak self and all that code you are doing.
In short: you can use a __strong reference to self in dealloc instead of __weak for your purposes but if and only if that strong reference won't outlive the end of dealloc. Otherwise, I would advise using __unsafe_unretained, which is still unsafe if it outlives the dealloc but is clearer to read.
Longer: I had a similar situation where the object (view controller) during dealloc should unsubscribe from notifications. That's a custom notifications system and unsubscribing requires creating an object with a reference to the entity that's being unsubscribed.
I ended up with the same situation: in dealloc there's no way to create that object because it required a weak reference which caused a crash (here's some stupid demo code, not something you would have in production):
#interface Dummy : NSObject
#property(nonatomic, weak) id weakProperty;
#property(nonatomic, strong) id strongProperty;
#property(nonatomic, unsafe_unretained) id unsafeProperty;
- (instancetype)initWithWeakStuff:(id)stuff;
- (instancetype)initWithStrongStuff:(id)stuff;
- (instancetype)initWithUnsafeStuff:(id)stuff;
#end
#implementation Dummy
- (instancetype)initWithWeakStuff:(id)stuff {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_weakProperty = stuff;
}
return self;
}
- (instancetype)initWithStrongStuff:(id)stuff {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_strongProperty = stuff;
}
return self;
}
- (instancetype)initWithUnsafeStuff:(id)stuff {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_unsafeProperty = stuff;
}
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc {
}
#end
#interface ViewController ()
#end
#implementation ViewController
- (void)viewDidLoad {
[super viewDidLoad];
// Do any additional setup after loading the view, typically from a nib.
}
- (void)didReceiveMemoryWarning {
[super didReceiveMemoryWarning];
// Dispose of any resources that can be recreated.
}
- (void)dealloc {
Dummy *dummy = [[Dummy alloc] initWithStrongStuff:self];
[[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter]
postNotificationName:#"some notification"
object:dummy]; // do something with it
}
#end
If, on the other hand, the reference was strong, all seems to work well (during dealloc). The problem would arise if that newly created object would outlive self:
- (void)dealloc {
Dummy *dummy = [[Dummy alloc] initWithStrongStuff:self];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
[[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter]
postNotificationName:#"some notification"
object:dummy]; // do something with it
}); //Crash at the end of the block during dummy's dealloc
}
This would mean that whenever the dummy object would need to dealloc it would try to decrease the ref count of its strongProperty. And at that point the ViewController has been deallocated and released already.
However, IMHO the "safest" way to proceed is to use unsafe_unretained in this case. Technically it's the same as using assign: pointer will be assigned regardless of memory management and that reference will not need to be released when it goes out of scope. But using unsafe_unretained tells the readers of your code (or future you) that you were aware of the risk and there must have been a reason to do what you did.
I'm relatively new to iOS development so please excuse me if this is a retarded question. I've read this but am still a bit confused.
I'm not using ARC. (Yes yes, I know I should but I don't at this point) In my class header I have this
/*-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The name of the sender/receiver
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------*/
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *name;
I do NOT synthesize this variable but let the compiler do that job.
What of the following is considered to be best practise for the dealloc method
#1 Dealloc the iVar
-(void) dealloc {
[_name release];
[super dealloc];
}
#2 Dealloc the property
-(void) dealloc {
[self.name release];
[super dealloc];
}
#3 And a last question. Is is customary to set the property to nil in the dealloc method? I.e.
-(void) dealloc {
[self.name release];
self.name = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
Would really appreciate if someone could explain this to me.
Regards!
Jeff Lamarche has written a nice article about releasing variables in the dealloc:
http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.nl/2010/09/dealloc.html
He suggest never to use the self. syntax, since it can cause problems in a multi threaded environment.
His suggestion is to use the iVar and set in to nil in production builds:
-(void) dealloc {
[_name release], _name = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
Approach 1:
It's safe to use it. There is no harm in releasing the iVar in dealloc method. However, when you have assigned the value to name, it must be through property or through alloc method(not the factory method).
Approach 2:
At the time of release, do not use properties.
Approach 3:
Do not use property but you can surely assign nil to ivar.
Im using a Base view controller for some other view controllers,
Im making it the base as I have 4 to 6 of other view controllers that will be showing the same label and image...
so I tried to make this base page and subClass the other ViewControllers,
my doubt is that if I leave the dealloc for the strings that contain the value for the label and other string, when dealloc is called for that page, then I get an exception
pointer being freed was not allocated
but I dont want just to comment out the deallocs for the labels,
so What im i doing wrong, missing?
here the BasePage
#import "BasePage.h"
#implementation BasePage
#synthesize titleString = _titleString;
#synthesize justifyTitleString = _justifyTitleString;
- (void) dealloc {
[_titleString dealloc];
[_justifyTitleString dealloc];
[super dealloc];
}
- (id)initWithParams:(NSString *)title :(NSString *)justifyTitle
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.titleString = title;
self.justifyTitleString = justifyTitle;
}
return self;
}
my app uses a navigation controller,
so when I call a page i use:
CentresVC *centresVC = [[[CentresVC alloc]initWithParams:[NSString stringWithFormat:#"Centre %d", indexPath.row]:#"center"]autorelease];
[self.navigationController pushViewController:centresVC animated:YES];
and pop the views when navigating back,
So I have the doubt of when using
[_titleString dealloc];
[_justifyTitleString dealloc];
where the pointer for those labels get saved?, and if i just commented out wich doesnt seem nice, would i get then a memory leak that would crash?
how to fix this?
thanks!
As Richard said, you shouldn't be calling other objects' dealloc method. Ever.
If titleString and justifyTitleString are retained/strong properties, then this version below would work. Assuming that no other objects had retained titleString and justifyTitleString, their retain counts would go to 0, and their dealloc methods would be called automatically.
- (void) dealloc {
[_titleString release];
[_justifyTitleString release];
[super dealloc];
}
This next option would work too, since the synthesized setter for a strong/retained property sends release to the old value of the property before assigning the new one. Also, this would be preferred if you had overridden your setter to do additional cleanup of the old value.
- (void) dealloc {
self.titleString = nil;
self.justifyTitleString = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
Finally, if you were using ARC, and you didn't need additional cleanup like in the second case above, you wouldn't need to override dealloc at all. But if you did need to override dealloc, you would omit [super dealloc] since that would be provided automatically by the compiler.
I am in the process of optimizing my app and making sure memory management is properly implemented. As I found the didUnload / dealloc / willAppear not reliable for implementing my memory cleanup, I decided to implement my own method so I can have full control of this memory management.
Definition of my arrays in the header file
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *selectedCardIDs;
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *selectedRowArray;
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *cardArray;
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *cardIDArray;
Here the release method:
- (void) willReleaseObjects {
[self.aCopyOfCardIDArray release];
[self.listOfItems release];
[self.aCopyListOfItems release];
[self.selectedCardIDs release];
[self.selectedRowArray release];
[self.cardArray release];
[self.cardIDArray release];
}
The arrays can get very large (> 1'000 entry each), why a release of those arrays is essential after the view is unloaded. I explicitly call this function in the IBAction method, such as:
- (IBAction) stopDictionary:(UIBarButtonItem *) sender {
[self closeDatabase];
[self willReleaseObjects];
[self dismissModalViewControllerAnimated:YES];
}
I debugged the code and it is actually executing each release, however when I diagnose the memory allocation with Instruments, it seems to free up only partial memory, actually almost nothing why the memory consumption of course is increasing every time I load this view again, which is no good at all.
Any idea, why my memory is not released here? Thanks.
Don't call release on a property as you risk something very bad happening in case you have any properties declared as assign or copy. You could potentially release a returned instance which is already autoreleased.
Instead either release the instance variable behind it or set the property to nil. Either way you will achieve the correct result. In case you have any Key/Value observers on your properties the best way is to set the properties to nil which will automatically propagate the values to any observers:
- (void) willReleaseObjects {
self.aCopyOfCardIDArray = nil;
self.listOfItems = nil;
...
}
There's a little bit uncommon situation in my app, that is,
I have to reload some retain properties everytime when the view is going to appear,
the code looks like this:
// .h
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSArray *myData;
// .m
#synthesize myData;
- (void)viewWillAppear:(BOOL)animated {
... // get FetchRequest and so on
self.myData = [self.context executeFetchRequest:request error:&error]; // Line 1
[super viewWillAppear:animated];
}
- (void)viewDidUnload {
self.myData = nil;
[super viewDidUnload];
}
- (void)dealloc {
[myData release]; // Line 2
[super dealloc];
}
there are several points:
1st. as you see, the property "myData" is retain, so I think every I set some object for it, it would automatically retain that object?
2nd. I have to reload "myData" everytime the view will appear, just like the code of Line 1 above.
3rd. Since it is a retain property, I have to release it myself correctly.
Now, question is, do I correctly managed the memory without any leaking of "myData" using the codes above?
If the view would appear many times before it is dealloc, (like push in a further view in a UINavigationController and pop out for several times),
then myData would retain some object more than once, but I only release it in the dealloc for 1 once in Line 2, so is that ok?
But if I add this method the to viewController,which I think is more safe for avoiding memory leaks:
- (void)viewWillDisappear:(BOOL)animated {
self.myData = nil;
[myData release];
[super viewWillDisappear:animated];
}
- (void)dealloc {
// [myData release]; // don't release it here.
[super dealloc];
}
my app would crash after one or two times I push in and pop out the view,
So which one is really wrong?
Thanks a lot!
You are not only releasing it in Line 2, it will be also released in Line 1 when replaced as well as in viewDidUnload, so your code on top is just fine. The key is that
self.myData = anything;
is expanded to
[self->myData release];
self->myData = [anything retain];
so by assigning anything (including nil) you are already calling release implicitly. You could in fact replace Line 2 with self.myData = nil; to have never to call release since you don't have any explicit retain.
.h
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSArray *myData;
.m
#synthesize myData;
By including these lines in your code a setter and getter is created for your property myData. The setter generated at run time for objects looks something like this,
- (void)setMyData: (id)newValue
{
if (myData != newValue)
{
[myData release];
myData = newValue;
[myData retain];
}
}
The total effect is that whenever you access the property by appending self in front you are actually calling the setters and getters. So the following two lines are the exact same.
self.myData = nil;
[self setMyData:nil];
So your original code was already correct.