Memory management with delegates, it is my understanding that I don't retain delegates, I am a little unsure about what to do with the delegate if the view gets unloaded (via viewDidUnload) and later recreated (via viewDidLoad)?
#property(assign) SomeClass *someDelegate;
.
- (void)viewDidLoad {
[super viewDidLoad];
someDelegate = [[SomeClass alloc] init];
[someDelegate setDelegate:self];
}
-(void)viewDidUnload {
[super viewDidUnload];
[self setSomeDelegate:nil];
}
-(void)dealloc {
[super dealloc];
}
PS: I might be on the wrong track, I am just trying to get my head round this ...
cheers Gary
If you use assign for your property, you're not calling retain on the object.
This means that you should definitely NOT call release or autorelease on it!
Your line in your dealloc
[someDelegate release];
will cause a crash at some point down in the future - you should remove it. You don't need to care about assigned properties in the dealloc method.
Your line
[self setSomeDelegate:nil];
will not leak.
However, you seem to have [[someDelegate alloc] init] in your viewDidLoad method. This is unusual; it's normal for the delegate to be an external object, not one made by yourself. In your case, it's not really a delegate, it's just an object that does something for you - you should rename it and change the property to a retain (and remember to release it in dealloc).
Currently, if your property is set to (assign) and someone else sets it, you will leak your initial delegate. If you only use the delegate inside this class, perhaps it shouldn't be a property at all? If you just want to be able to read it from outside your class you might be able to use (readonly) instead of assign (and change [self setSomeDelegate:nil] to someDelegate=nil;)
Your line in viewDidUnload that sets the delegate to nil removes the issue you raise in your second comment - you're removing the delegate so by the time you get to viewDidLoad again, your delegate is already nil :)
This may shed some light to understand why
The reason that you avoid retaining delegates is that you need to
avoid a retain cycle:
A creates B A sets itself as B's delegate … A is released by its owner
If B had retained A, A wouldn't be released, as B owns A, thus A's
dealloc would never get called, causing both A and B to leak.
You shouldn't worry about A going away because it owns B and thus gets
rid of it in dealloc.
Related
For example:
// CustomViewClass
- (void)showOnView: (UIView*)view {
[view addSubview: self.customView];
}
Then invoke this method at another class, like a view controller's viewDidLoad.
- (void)viewDidLoad {
[super viewDidLoad];
[self.customViewClass showOnView: self.view];
}
I pass a view controller's view to CustomViewClass as the above.
My question is: Would it cause some kind of retain cycle?
Are these views passed through parameter referenced weakly?
Or it's fine to that.
It would be highly appreciated if anyone explain it in both Swift and Objective-C.
What is Retain Cycle? - It's the condition when 2 objects keep a reference to each other and are retained, it creates a retain cycle since both objects try to retain each other, making it impossible to release.
In this case, self.customViewClass keep a reference to self.view but self.view doesn't keep any reference to self.customViewClass. Which keeps reference to self.customViewClass is self, not self.view.
So of course, it won't causes retain cycle
Don't believe in me ? 🤣 - Check it yourself by trying to log something inside dealloc method.
After you dismiss CustomViewController, if the code inside dealloc is called and log something, it means no retain cycle here. If not, it causes retain cycle.
For example
- (void)dealloc {
NSLog(#"BOOM RIGHT ANSWER!!!");
}
Memory leaks happens when two class having objects pointing to each other .For e.g.
class A{
var object_b = B()
}
class B{
var object_a = A()
}
Now consider your case :
// CustomViewClass
- (void)showOnView: (UIView*)view {
[view addSubview: self.customView];
}
Your" view" object is local variable .CustomViewClass doest not reference to superview "view".
Now when customview is added to superview:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
[super viewDidLoad];
[self.customViewClass showOnView: self.view];
}
When showOnView function of CustomViewClass called the superview simply adds subview CustomViewClass view.
For finding memory leaks always add deinit function in views and viewController class so that you can sure about class is deallocated or not.
deinit {
print("deinit called " + "Class name")
}
This won't lead to a retain cycle. It is a one way reference of object where parent view has it's reference in a secondary(custom) view. However there is no reference of that secondary view in the parent view. So unless that situation arises, you are quite safe as far as retain cycle is concerned and there is no need of a weak reference of the parent view.
What am I doing is I am creating lots of UIView in the background and keep them in a NSMutableArray to use later. But when I dismiss the view controller I check the memory in Xcode and it seems some of memory not being released. I checked; view controller is being deallocated.
Check please:
This happend after several showing and dismissing the view controller. Some of them is being released but not all.
Thanks.
Uncheck Enable Zombie Objects option under Edit Scheme. And try again.
A zombie is an object that has been deallocated, but references to it still exist and messages are still being sent to it
I think this link has more info for you
What is NSZombie?
I suppose you use arc, so it might be useful to explicitly release this in dealloc.
-(void)dealloc {
for(UIView *vw in self.arrayOfViews) {
vw = nil;
}
self.arrayOfViews = nil;
}
Using dealloc is a bit like the old days (pre-arc), but it will help you manage memory better.
!important! --> NEVER call [super dealloc]; when using arc!
In dealloc method release all views that you have in the array.
called the below method in your controller dealloc method
- (void)releaseViewArray
{
// Releasing views in the array
for (UIView *view in _viewArray) {
[view release];
}
// Releasing the array that holding the views
[_viewArray release];
}
In iOS, I pop from current viewController into previous one, but it doesn't go into dealloc.
Is this because there is another pointer pointing towards the current viewController, either in a different viewController or in the current one?
This is where I pop to previous view:
- (IBAction)fileUploadCancelTouched:(UIButton *)sender {
[self.fileToUpload cancel];
[self.view hideToastActivity];
[self.greenprogressBar removeFromSuperview];
[self.subView removeFromSuperview];
self.fileUploadCancelButton.hidden = YES;
if (self.commandComeBackToFinalScreen == 1) {
[self.navigationController popViewControllerAnimated:YES];
}
}
This is my dealloc function:
- (void)dealloc {
[[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] removeObserver:self];
self.greenprogressBar = nil;
self.fileUploadCancelButton = nil;
self.fileToUpload = nil;
[buttonHome_ release];
[buttonTestMeAgain_ release];
[buttonMarkMyTest_ release];
[examId_ release];
[sender_ release];
self.ob = nil;
[_fileUploadCancelButton release];
[super dealloc];
}
Check to make sure that ARC is not enabled in your project. If it is not ARC enabled then dealloc should be called unless your code is retaining your view controller. You should check through the Instruments tool if your pop commands reduces memory or not.
There may be some other reasons as mentioned in another answer that I am posting below:
The obvious reason is that something is retaining your viewController. You will have to look closely at your code. Do you do anything that in your class that uses delegates, since they sometimes retain the delegate. NSURLConnection will retain your class, and so does NSTimer. You can scatter code in you class and log your class's retain count, and try to find out where. In the code you showed so far the retain could should just be 1, since the class is only retained by the navigation controller.
Also, before you pop your view, get a reference to it, pop it with NO animation, and then send it some message that has it report the retain count (this would be some new method you write). That new method could also log other things, like whether it has any timers going, NSURLConnections, etc.
First of all, get rid of [super dealloc]. I know that's intuitive, but the documentation says don't do it.
In my own case, I had an observer & timer in my dealloc method, but that wouldn't run since the timer had a strong pointer to the controller.
Created a dedicated clean up method which removed the observer & invalidated the timer. Once that ran, the controller was correctly deallocated.
I need to perform an action in the dealloc method of a category. I've tried swizzling but that doesn't work (nor is it a great idea).
In case anyone asks, the answer is no, I can't use a subclass, this is specifically for a category.
I want to perform an action on delay using [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:target:selector:userInfo:repeats:] or [self performSelector:withObject:afterDelay:] and cancel it on dealloc.
The first issue is that NSTimer retains the target, which I don't want. [self performSelector:withObject:afterDelay:] doesn't retain, but I need to be able to call [NSObject cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:selector:object:] in the dealloc method or we get a crash.
Any suggestions how to do this on a category?
I still think it would be better to subclass your class and not mess with the runtime, but if you are definitely sure you need to do it in a category, I have an option in mind for you. It still messes with the runtime, but is safer than swizzling I think.
Consider writing a helper class, say calling it DeallocHook which can be attached to any NSObject and perform an action when this NSObject gets deallocated. Then you can do something like this:
// Instead of directly messing with your class -dealloc method, attach
// the hook to your instance and do the cleanup in the callback
[DeallocHook attachTo: yourObject
callback: ^{ [NSObject cancelPrevious... /* your code here */ ]; }];
You can implement the DeallocHook using objc_setAssociatedObject:
#interface DeallocHook : NSObject
#property (copy, nonatomic) dispatch_block_t callback;
+ (id) attachTo: (id) target callback: (dispatch_block_t) block;
#end
Implementation would be something like this:
#import "DeallocHook.h"
#import <objc/runtime.h>
// Address of a static global var can be used as a key
static void *kDeallocHookAssociation = &kDeallocHookAssociation;
#implementation DeallocHook
+ (id) attachTo: (id) target callback: (dispatch_block_t) block
{
DeallocHook *hook = [[DeallocHook alloc] initWithCallback: block];
// The trick is that associations are released when your target
// object gets deallocated, so our DeallocHook object will get
// deallocated right after your object
objc_setAssociatedObject(target, kDeallocHookAssociation, hook, OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC);
return hook;
}
- (id) initWithCallback: (dispatch_block_t) block
{
self = [super init];
if (self != nil)
{
// Here we just copy the callback for later
self.callback = block;
}
return self;
}
- (void) dealloc
{
// And we place our callback within the -dealloc method
// of your helper class.
if (self.callback != nil)
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), self.callback);
}
#end
See Apple's documentation on Objective-C runtime for more info about the associative references (although I'd say the docs are not very detailed regarding this subject).
I've not tested this thoroughly, but it seemed to work. Just thought I'd give you another direction to look into.
I just stumbled on a solution to this that I haven't seen before, and seems to work...
I have a category that--as one often does--needs some state variables, so I use objc_setAssociatedObject, like this:
Memento *m = [[[Memento alloc] init] autorelease];
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, kMementoTagKey, m, OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC);
And, I needed to know when the instances my category extending were being dealloced. In my case it's because I set observers on self, and have to remove those observers at some point, otherwise I get the NSKVODeallocateBreak leak warnings, which could lead to bad stuff.
Suddenly it dawned on me, since my associated objects were being retained (because of using OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC), they must be being released also, and therefore being dealloced...in fact I had implemented a dealloc method in the simple storage class I had created for storing my state values. And, I postulated: my associated objects must be dealloced before my category's instances are! So, I can have my associated objects notify their owners when they realize they are being dealloced! Since I already had my retained associated objects, I just had to add an owner property (which is not specified as retain!), set the owner, and then call some method on the owner in the associated object's dealloc method.
Here's a modified part of my category's .m file, with the relevant bits:
#import <objc/runtime.h> // So we can use objc_setAssociatedObject, etc.
#import "TargetClass+Category.h"
#interface TargetClass_CategoryMemento : NSObject
{
GLfloat *_coef;
}
#property (nonatomic) GLfloat *coef;
#property (nonatomic, assign) id owner;
#end
#implementation TargetClass_CategoryMemento
-(id)init {
if (self=[super init]) {
_coef = (GLfloat *)malloc(sizeof(GLfloat) * 15);
}
return self;
};
-(void)dealloc {
free(_coef);
if (_owner != nil
&& [_owner respondsToSelector:#selector(associatedObjectReportsDealloc)]) {
[_owner associatedObjectReportsDealloc];
}
[super dealloc];
}
#end
#implementation TargetClass (Category)
static NSString *kMementoTagKey = #"TargetClass+Category_MementoTagKey";
-(TargetClass_CategoryMemento *)TargetClass_CategoryGetMemento
{
TargetClass_CategoryMemento *m = objc_getAssociatedObject(self, kMementoTagKey);
if (m) {
return m;
}
// else
m = [[[TargetClass_CategoryMemento alloc] init] autorelease];
m.owner = self; // so we can let the owner know when we dealloc!
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, kMementoTagKey, m, OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC);
return m;
}
-(void) doStuff
{
CCSprite_BlurableMemento *m = [self CCSprite_BlurableGetMemento];
// do stuff you needed a category for, and store state values in m
}
-(void) associatedObjectReportsDealloc
{
NSLog(#"My associated object is being dealloced!");
// do stuff you need to do when your category instances are dealloced!
}
#end
The pattern here I learned somewhere (probably on S.O.) uses a factory method to get or create a memento object. Now it sets the owner on the memento, and the memento's dealloc method calls back to let the owner know it's being dealloced
CAVEATS:
Obviously, you have to have your associated object set with OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC, or it won't be retained and released for you automatically.
This becomes trickier if your memento/state associated object gets dealloced under other circumstances than the owner being dealloced...but you can probably train one object or the other to ignore that event.
The owner property can't be declared as retain, or you'll truly create a strong reference loop and neither object will ever qualify to be dealloced!
I don't know that it's documented that OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC associated objects are necessarily released before the owner is completely dealloced, but it seems to happen that way and almost must be the case, intuitively at least.
I don't know if associatedObjectReportsDealloc will be called before or after the TargetClass's dealloc method--this could be important! If it runs afterwards, if you try to access member objects of the TargetClass you will crash! And my guess is that it's afterwards.
This is a little messy, because you're double-linking your objects, which requires you to be very careful to keep those references straight. But, it doesn't involve swizzling, or other interference with the runtime--this just relies on a certain behavior of the runtime. Seems like a handy solution if you already have an associated object. In some cases it might be worth creating one just to catch your own deallocs!
Your proposed solution unfortunately won't work: because NSTimer retains its target, the target will never run its dealloc until the timer has been invalidated. The target's retain count will always be hovering at 1 or above, waiting for the timer to release it. You have to get to the timer before dealloc. (Pre-ARC, you could override retain and release and destroy the timer, although that's really not a good solution.)
NSThread also has this problem, and the solution is simple: a bit of redesigning separates the controller of the thread from the "model". The object which creates and owns the thread, or timer in this case, should not also be the target of the timer. Then, instead of the retain cycle you currently have (timer owns object which owns timer), you have a nice straight line: controller owns timer which owns target. Outside objects only need to interact with the controller: when it is deallocated, it can shut down the timer without you having to play games with overriding dealloc or other memory management methods.
That's the best way to handle this. In the case that you can't do that for some reason -- you're talking about category overrides, so apparently you don't have the code for the class which is the target of the timer (but you can still probably make a controller even in that case) -- you can use weak references. Unfortunately I don't know any way to make an NSTimer take a weak reference to its target, but GCD will give you a fair approximation via dispatch_after(). Get a weak reference to the target and use that exclusively in the Block you pass. The Block will not retain the object through the weak reference (the way NSTimer would), and the weak reference will of course be nil if the object has been deallocated before the Block runs, so you can safely write whatever message sends you like.
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.