Why memory is not increasing?Has memory allocated physically? - objective-c

I have tested the code in Xcode 10.3
- (void)loopObjectMalloc {
while (1) {
NSObject *obj = [[NSObject alloc] init];
}
}
I expect the OOM happened, but memory not increased. Is the alloc function not memset to the physical memory ?

By default Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) is turned on. So obj will be released at the end of each loop and make memory not be increased.
obj doesn't need to wait for every loops finished.
- (void)loopObjectMalloc {
while (1) {
// At the beginning of each loop, `obj` is created.
NSObject *obj = [[NSObject alloc] init];
// End of the loop, obj is released due to out of scope.
}
// End of function.
}
There is no need autorelease pool to release your object. release will be inserted to your code at compile time automatically.
retain, release, retainCount, autorelease or dealloc cannot be sent to objects. Instead, the compiler inserts these messages at compile time automatically, including [super dealloc] when dealloc is overridden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Reference_Counting#Objective-C
Note: If you want to see OOM, turn off ARC.

You can use use bridging functions to take ownership from ARC:
- (void)loopObjectMalloc {
while (1) {
CFTypeRef obj = CFBridgingRetain([[NSObject alloc] init]);
}
}

Related

Does ARC ever inject unconventional code?

Does ARC ever inject retain and release calls that you generally wouldn't see in a non-ARC environment?
For example, explicitly releasing an object from a getter:
- (NSArray *)dummyArray {
return [[NSArray alloc]init];
}
- (void)useDummyArray {
NSArray * arr = [self dummyArray];
//do something with arr
[arr release]; //unconventional injection of release.
}
Would ARC ever generate a release statement like the code above or would it autorelease the array returned by [self dummyArray];
The beauty of ARC is that you don't know, or need to know. However, you can give hints to the ARC static analyzer:
-(NSArray *) dummyArray NS_RETURNS_RETAINED { // this tells ARC that this function returns a retained value that should be released by the callee
return [[NSArray alloc] init];
}
-(NSArray *) otherDummyArray NS_RETURNS_NOT_RETAINED { // this tells ARC that the function returns a non-retained (autoreleased) value, which should NOT be released by the callee.
return [[NSArray alloc] init];
}
However, NS_RETURNS_NOT_RETAINED is the default, as long as your function name doesn't begin with init, in which NS_RETURNS_RETAINED becomes default.
So, in your specific scenario, it will almost always return an autorelease'd value. One major reason for this is support for interpolation with non-ARC code, which could result in leaks.

release returned object or do i have to use autorelease

sample code:
- (Foo*)createFoo {
Foo *foo = [[Foo alloc] init];
return foo;
}
- (void)someOtherMethod {
Foo *foo;
foo = [self createFoo]; //retain count 1
[foo release]; //retain count = 0 => object gets released?
//repeat
foo = [self createFoo];
[foo release];
}
Question: Do i have to autorelease in createFoo or can i release the returned object in someOtherMethod?
Your code in this instance should be autoreleasing your object as you are handing over ownership to the calling code, you no longer wish to be responsible for it within the method and so you should relinquish your retain on it.
Remember NARC - methods that begin with these keywords are assumed to NOT autorelease...
New, Alloc, Retain, Copy
If your method were named newFoo or copyFoo then your code above would be fine without autoreleasing.
Cocoa memory management is actually quite easy because everybody sticks to a set of rules. You aren't following those rules, so you're going to run into trouble.
Read Basic Memory Management Rules. If you stick to following those rules, you should be fine.

Obj-c autorelease a variable up a chain of methods

I'm new to Obj-C and I have a question concerning the autorelease. Is it ok to return an autoreleased variable for several methods? For example:
- (void) methodC {
Object anObj = [self methodB];
//Do something with anObj
}
- (Object *) methodB {
return [self methodA];
}
- (Object *) methodA {
Object anObj = [[anObj alloc] init];
release [anObj autorelease];
}
Will the variable remain valid even if it is returned up a method chain and used at the top? Or does it have to be retained somewhere along the way?
thank you
Yes, it will be valid in this case. You only have to worry about the variable being deallocated if somebody drains the autorelease pool. As long as you've written every function that returns along the way and you don't explicitly drain the autorelease pool, you don't have to worry about objects being deallocated from under you.
In the vast majority of cases, the code in the NSRunLoop takes care of draining the autorelease pool. When you return control from your application code to the API code (such as by returning from a touchesBegan handler etc.), you don't know if the autorelease pool will be drained, so you have to assume in the worst case that it will. In that case, you have to retain any objects you want to keep references to.
For example:
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
Object *anObj = [self methodC]; // Your methodC as before -- anObj is valid
[pool drain]; // anObj will be deallocated here
The variable should remain valid. You only need to retain an object if it is actually "owned" by some other object and could be indirectly/unintentionally released along with it. For example, if you extracted an object from an array and then released the array, your object reference could become invalid unless you explicitly retain it.
For more details, see Object Ownership and Dismissal, particularly the sections on Autorelease and Validity of Shared Objects. The latter uses the following code to illustrate how you could "accidentally" make an object reference invalid.
heisenObject = [array objectAtIndex:n];
[array removeObjectAtIndex:n];
// heisenObject could now be invalid.
The following code shows how to mitigate this problem using retain.
heisenObject = [[array objectAtIndex:n] retain];
[array removeObjectAtIndex:n];
// use heisenObject.
[heisenObject release];

Objective-C memory management: how do you release the memory when you return an allocated instance?

How do you release the memory in this situation? Do you have to?
- (NSString *) whatHappensHere {
NSMutableString * mutableString = [[NSMutableString alloc] initWithString:#"Hello"];
// ....
// more code ...
// ...
return mutableString;
}
With autorelease
- (NSString *) whatHappensHere {
NSMutableString * mutableString = [[NSMutableString alloc] initWithString:#"Hello"];
[mutableString autorelease];
return mutableString;
}
As willcodejavaforfood said, the convention is that any newly-allocated object returned from a method should be autorelease'd before being returned. This tells the Objective-C runtime that if nobody takes ownership of it with retain before (in most cases) the current iteration of the application event loop ends, it should be freed.
If it's just used locally in the calling function or returned up the stack, that works great and it gets freed sooner or later. If someone ends up wanting to keep it around, then they have to retain it and so will know they have to release it themselves later on.
(In fact, most of the non-init* utility constructors for ObjC base classes like strings, etc, do just that, or at least something functionally equivalent.)

Objective-C Properties and Memory Management

Given the following property definition:
#property (nonatomic,retain) MyObject* foo;
does the following code cause a memory leak:
self.foo = [[MyObject alloc] init];
?
It looks like the alloc call increments the retain count on the object to 1, then the retain inside the property setter increases it to 1. But since the initial count is never decremented to 0, the object will stick around even when self is released. Is that analysis correct?
If so, it looks like I have two alternatives:
self.foo = [[[MyObject alloc] init] autorelease];
which is not recommended on the iPhone for performance reasons, or:
MyObject* x = [[MyObject alloc] init];
self.foo = x
[x release];
which is a bit cumbersome. Are there other alternatives?
Are there any alternatives?
No.
You are not going to be able write much of an iPhone application without using autorelease and the Cocoa Touch library uses them in many places. Understand what it's doing (adding the pointer to a list for removal on the next frame) and avoid using it in tight loops.
You can use class method on MyObject that does alloc/init/autorelease for you to clean it up.
+ (MyObject *)object {
return [[[MyObject alloc] init] autorelease];
}
self.foo = [MyObject object];
The easiest way to manage a retained property on the iPhone is the following (autorelease is not as bad as you think, at least for most uses):
-(id)init {
if (self = [super init]) {
self.someObject = [[[Object alloc] init] autorelease];
}
return self;
}
-(void)dealloc {
[someObject release];
[super dealloc];
}
The autorelease releases the reference to the floating instance which is assigned to self.object which retains its own reference, leaving you with the one reference you need (someObject). Then when the class is destroyed the only remaining reference is released, destroying the object.
As described in another answer, you can also create one or more "constructor" messages to create and autorelease the objects with optional parameters.
+(Object)object;
+(Object)objectWithCount:(int)count;
+(Object)objectFromFile:(NSString *)path;
One could define these as:
// No need to release o if fails because its already autoreleased
+(Object)objectFromFile:(NSString *)path {
Object *o = [[[Object alloc] init] autorelease];
if (![o loadFromFile:path]) {
return nil;
}
return o;
}
You are right, self.foo = [[MyObject alloc] init]; is leaking memory. Both alternatives are correct and can be used. Regarding the autorelease in such a statement: keep in mind that the object will released by the autorelease pool as soon as the current run loop ends, but it will most probably be retained a lot longer by self, so there is no issue with memory usage spikes here.