I am a C programmer, but is pretty new to Objective-C. I've seen NSString-related code like this several times:
NSAppleScript* script = [[NSAppleScript alloc] initWithSource: #"<some script code>"];
...
[script release];
The above code explicitly releases the NSAppleScript object, but doesn't seem to release the NSString object anywhere.
I wondered if the [script release] automatically does the job of implicit release of the NSString object, so I changed the above code to the following:
NSString* scriptText = #"<some script code>";
NSAppleScript* script = [[NSAppleScript alloc] initWithSource: scriptText];
...
[script release];
//If [script release] has implicitly released scriptText,
//this would cause a repeated release.
[scriptText release];
But the above code turned out running also well. Does it mean that [script release] doesn't automatically release the NSObject object? In other words, does the code in the first section leak release of the NSString?
Very short answer: no. You shouldn't release scriptText. (In fact, you must not.)
In ObjC manual reference counting, you need to follow the rules, which are based on method names. If you call a method whose name begins with alloc or new or includes copy, then you are responsible for calling release or autorelease on the object that is returned to you. Also, if you call retain on an object, you are responsible to call release or autorelease.
Following the rules, you called +[NSAppleScript alloc], so you are responsible for calling release on the object returned to you. You did not call a retaining method to get scriptText; you used an NSString literal (#"..."). So you must not call release on it. It doesn't leak. (If it did, it would indicate a bug in Apple's code.)
The way this actually works is that NSString literals are stored directly in the binary, just like in C. There is no need to manage them, since they do not directly use memory. But this has nothing to do with your obligations under manual reference counting. You shouldn't think "this is a string literal so I shouldn't call release on it." That's not true at all. You should call release when the rules tell you to call release. It is completely correct to call retain on a value that happens to be a literal, and later call release on it. (This happens all the time. You generally don't know whether the NSString you're working with is a literal or not.)
It happens to be true that calling retain or release on NSString literals does nothing. They just ignore the call. Very short NSString objects don't even exist in memory. If they're short enough, the data is stored directly in the pointer (called a "tagged pointer"). Again, this is just an implementation detail. Your job is to follow the rules, not try to second-guess the system.
(The reason that your incorrect code with the extra release "works" is because literal NSStrings ignore memory management calls. The code is still incorrect. There's also no promise that over-releasing an object will cause a crash in any case, and it is very, very common when it does crash for it to occur at a random point, far away from the mistake. It's very common for objects to have pending autorelease calls on them, so you get a crash when the pool drains, with no hint where your bug is.)
And of course you should turn on ARC and let it handle it for you. It does a very good job. But it's helpful to understand the rules anyway. ARC uses the same name-based rules to figure out where to put retains and releases. That's how it can interoperate seamlessly with manual memory management.
Related
I have this basic question where when we try to allocate memory to a string by using alloc init and add it to autorelease pool, and then try to release it, it doesn't crash.
NSString *value = [[[NSString alloc] initWithString:#"Hello"] autorelease];
[value release];
If I do the same thing for a array, it crashes.
I just want to know how string is different from array since both inherit from NSObject.
Do you mean it doesn't crash right away?
I.e. in the debugger after stepping over the release line?
The Autorelease-Pool will not have triggered at that point so the auto-release operation is still outstanding.
Either way - As always with memory errors they might not crash
instantly,
on your machine/operating system,
with this specific built,
with your current build settings,
...
or even at all.
It's a programming error nevertheless.
It is not guaranteed that the program crashes. Unfortunally there are several errors that does not cause a crash (immediately).
However there is an optimization for string literals. They live eternally regardless of the way they are created, retained or released. -initWithString: can be smart enough not to return a new instance of NSString.
First, undefined behavior is undefined -- it is not guaranteed to crash or do any other specific thing. Over-release is undefined behavior.
Second, what is happening here is that string literals evaluate to a pointer to a statically-allocated string object which lives for the lifetime of the program. It is not dynamically-allocated, and thus is not subject to memory management. retain, release, etc. have no effect on it. [[NSString alloc] initWithString:...] (as well as [... copy]) on an immutable string object simply retains and returns its argument directly, since there is no need to create a new object. So [[NSString alloc] initWithString:#"Hello"] is the same as #"Hello".
I'm new to Objective-C and cocoa. In the guide provided by Apple for Cocoa, there is a confusing example in memory management:
Suppose you want to implement a method to reset the counter. You have a couple of choices. The first implementation creates the NSNumber instance with alloc, so you balance that with a release.
- (void)reset {
NSNumber *zero = [[NSNumber alloc] initWithInteger:0];
[self setCount:zero];
[zero release];
}
The second uses a convenience constructor to create a new NSNumber object. There is therefore no need for retain or release messages
- (void)reset {
NSNumber *zero = [NSNumber numberWithInteger:0];
[self setCount:zero];
}
I am not sure why the object is created with 'new' instead of 'alloc & init' does not need to be retained/released. My understanding is that both are doing the same thing, except that with 'alloc & init' we can use custom checks and initialisation.
Many thanks.
The second example returns an auto released object. The code for the convenience constructor probably looks like this, at least when it comes to replicate the functionality.
+ (NSNumber *)numberWithInteger:(NSInteger)integer
{
NSNumber *number = [[NSNumber alloc] initWithInteger:integer];
return [number autorelease];
}
Autorelease is a way to defer sending a release method to an object while not delegating ownership of the object to the caller of the constructor. This is an important concept, because the naming conventions require you to not return ownership of an object unless your method starts with copy new alloc or retain. However, since you can't return an owned object, you would have to call release on it in your convenience constructor, which would then lead to you returning a deallocated object. So, autorelease allows you to return an un-owned object to the caller which will receive an actual release method later (when the current autorelease pool gets drained).
Autorelease methods are collected in so called autorelease pools, which are thread local quasi linked lists (they are not implemented as linked lists, but they do work like they were) and that just collect autoreleased objects. Objects can be added to them multiple times by calling, once for each autorelease method they receive. When the pools is drained or destroyed, all objects it contains will receive a release message. By default, the system will provide you with an auto release pool, at least on the main thread, but you can create your own ones using this code (which is also used in every main method, if you take a look):
#autoreleaspool
{
[foo autorelease]; // foo will receive a `release` method at the closing brace
}
By convention, all methods who's name start with "alloc" or "copy" or "new" increase the retain count by 1.
All other methods do not change the retain count. Since "numberWithInteger" doesn't start with "alloc" or "copy" or "new" it returns an object with a retain count of 0. But instead of setting it to 0 immediately (which would never work), it sets the retain count to 1 and then schedules it to be dropped down to 0 at some point in the future (usually when the event loop is idle, but you can manually make it happen sooner), using an "autorelease pool".
The only exception to the alloc/copy/new naming convention is, of course, the actual "retain" and "release" and "autorelease" methods, which increase/decrease the retain count or schedule it to be decreased later.
It is not a language feature, it's just a coding practice. Every method starting with "alloc" and "copy" and "new" sets retain to 1, everything else sets it to 1 but schedules it to be dropped to 0 later.
Of course, if you are using ARC, and you should absolutely be using ARC, then you don't have to worry about any of this because the compiler will find the last line of code that uses the object, and will insert a line of code after it to free up the memory. This leads to faster code, because the autorelease mechanism is a bit slow and sometimes uses too much RAM.
When ARC is enabled, none of those rules apply. The compiler ignores all your memory management code (or tells you to delete it), and writes it's own code. It's not actual garbage collection, it's just manual memory management that is generated by Xcode instead of written by hand.
Objects that are created with +alloc -init are returned with a retain count of +1, meaning that you have to call -release when you are done with this object. This is the same with +new , which is just a simple combination of [[ alloc] init], eg.
NSDate *date = [NSDate new]; // I will have to send -release at some point
As a convention, methods that contains init, new, create and copy will transfer ownership to you, meaning that you need to send -release at some point. Other methods will not transfer ownership, meaning that the object is autoreleased, ie. it has a short lifetime and is scheduled to be dealloced in the future. If you want this object to stick around, you will need to explicitly take ownership by sending -retain.
NSDate *date = [NSDate date]; // I won't have to send -release
// But this object will be dealloced soon
// so if I want it to stick around, I will need to retain it
This convention is not enforced by the language.
It is also useful to remember that this convention expands beyond the Objective-C part of the SDK, it is also the case in CoreGraphics and all C frameworks provided by Apple, and most third-party frameworks make use of this convention.
CGContextRef context = UIGraphicsGetCurrentContext(); // I won't have to release this context
CGImageRef result = CGBitmapContextCreateImage(context); // I will have to release this image
/* ... */
CGRelease(result);
As for your example : -numberWithInteger: does not contain either init, new, create or copy. So you don't need to -release it when done.
This might be a stupid question, but it keeps bothering me.
Say if we have a method that takes an NSString object as its parameter and does something with the NSString object,
- (void)someMethod:(NSString *)str
{
//do something with str
}
Consider this code
[someObject someMethod:[[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"Hello World!"]];
Since alloc has been used in creating the string as parameter of someMethod, it has to be balanced by release no matter explicitly in pre-ARC environment or implicitly under ARC. But it seems there is no way we can get a pointer to the string as we have never assigned it to any pointer.
So my question is, first, is this way of passing parameter prohibited in writing objective c code? If no, then how objects created this way get released? And finally, does this code lead to memory leak?
Just for the record, I understand the above code is written
NSString *string = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"Hello World!"];
[someObject someMethod:string];
// [string release]; depending on ARC or non-ARC
Well, in fact, that object is assigned to the variable named str, which is a parameter of your method. You can manage the memory inside your method via that pointer, although methods aren't supposed to take ownership of their arguments (except see below).
ARC knows what to do in this situation -- it will either autorelease the object or add a release once the method is finished.
Under MRR, your snippet would be a leak; the correct way to avoid that is also to send autorelease:
[someObject someMethod:[[[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"Hello World!"] autorelease]];
or to use your last snippet (putting the string into a temporary variable and releasing later).
As a slightly esoteric option, it is possible for your method to declare that it owns the argument, by using the ns_consumed attribute:
- (void)someMethod:(NSString *) __attribute__((ns_consumed)) str;
This indicates that your method should send release to the object before it returns -- ARC will also take care of that.
So my question is, first, is this way of passing parameter prohibited in writing objective c code?
No. It's perfectly legal.
If no, then how objects created this way get released?
ARC will take care of it for you. If you do your own reference counting, then you can add it to the autorelease pool before it goes out of scope:
[someObject someMethod:
[[[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"Hello World!"] autorelease]];
^^^^^^^^^^^
And finally, does this code lead to memory leak?
Not in ARC. In MRC, you would need to add the -autorelease.
The static analyzer would also point out that leak.
There's no reason to not write code as you ask for consideration on… nothing prohibited in the slightest. These objects get released in the same manner that any other object gets released. Your lack of a variable to store the pointer in at the top level isn't important because the Objective C runtime knows about the object.
If I release mainPath in following example the program gives an error (because I’m releasing an object with zero counter)
NSString *mainPath = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#/Documents/downloadFile.plist",NSHomeDirectory()];
NSLog(#"address is = %#",mainPath);
[mainPath release]; //Program failed here
But the following code works fine.
NSString *aa=#"hiiiii";
[aa release];
Can anyone explain this?
Actually I’m not clear about the pointer concept (give a suitable link to clear it)
Constant NSStrings are a special case. They are allocated statically at compile time and can't be deallocated. You can send release to a constant string as many times as you like, it'll never get deallocated. This is achieved in the current implementation by setting the retain count to INT_MAX which is treated as a special value meaning "don't decrement me on release".
You should read the Cocoa Memory Management Guide or at least the Objective-C Tutorial by Scott Stevenson. (Really. Do it, you’ll save a lot of time in the long run.) The difference is that the first string is autoreleased, you do not own it and should not release it. The second string is special, I think it’s not allocated on the heap at all and the release is essentially a no-op here.
String with format is a convenience method that autoreleases the string so in this case you are likely to be sending a release message to an already deallocated object.
In your second example, you are creating the string statically so retain counts don't apply.
You don't need to release your objects in either of those cases.
As a rule of thumb, if you didn't use init (or initWithFoo:) to create the object, and didn't deliberately use retain to retain the object (plus couple of other rarer cases), you don't need to use release.
3 correlated questions:
1.Do the code snippets below provide the very same results in terms of memory?
NSBundle *bundle=[[NSBundle alloc] init];
[bundle release];
bundle=nil;
and
NSAutoreleasePool *pool=[[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
NSBundle *bundle=[NSBundle mainBundle];
[pool drain];
pool=nil;
bundle=nil;
2.Why in
NSBundle *bundle=[[NSBundle alloc] init];
[bundle release];
the retainCount of bundle is 1, not 0?
3.Which is recommended: always use class methods, or always gain ownership by using alloc?
Thanks.
Yes, those should be equivalent in terms of memory management, from the developer's point of view. The frameworks might be doing something behind the scene to hang on to [NSBundle mainBundle], but that's not your concern.
Ignore retainCount. waves hand That's not the method you're looking for. Once you have relinquished ownership of an object, either by invoking release or autorelease, then it is invalid (bad practice) to send more messages to that object. In your example, you alloc an NSBundle, so you own it. That means it has a +1 retain count (I say +1, because it's relative). When you release the bundle, it now has a "0" retain count, which means you no longer own this object (despite whether or not it may still exist in memory), which means you should not send messages to it, under penalty of stuff blowing up in your face.
What's recommended is to use whatever's appropriate for the situation. If you just need a temporary object, then using a class method that returns an autoreleased object is probably going to be just fine. If you need to be absolutely sure that the object isn't going to go away while you're using it, then you can use an alloc/init approach (or retain an autoreleased object) and then just release it when you're done.
In the second example you will create 1 extra object (the NSAutorealeasePool) and because of that the two are not exactly the same in terms of memory. But after the code runs I believe the memory will return to the same state in both examples. I am not really sure but I believe that in the second example bundle is an autoreleased object, so when the pool is drained it gets released.
I believe that when the object gets dealloc'ed the retainCount isn't changed.
It is usually recommended to avoid class methods when you create a lot of temporary objects because they won't get released until the next AutoreleasePool drain is called (and if you don't have an AutoreleasePool inside your method it won't happen for sure until you return from your method - and maybe even later). Otherwise you should use the one that feels better for you. I personally prefer allocating them. It is also important to remember that if you want the autoreleased object (the one returned from a class method) to stick around even after you return from the function to retain it.