Question
I am working on a project where I am concerned about the thread safety of an object's properties. I know that when a property is an object such as an NSString, I can run into situations where multiple threads are reading and writing simultaneously. In this case you can get a corrupt read and the app will either crash or result in corrupted data.
My question is for primitive value type properties such as BOOLs or NSIntegers. I am wondering if I can get into a similar situation where I read a corrupt value when reading and writing from multiple threads (and the app will crash)? In either case, I am interested in why.
Clarification - 1/13/17
I am mostly interested in if a primitive value type property is differently susceptible to crashing due to multiple threads accessing it at the same time than an object such as NSMutableString, custom created object, etc. In addition, if there is a difference when accessing memory on the stack vs heap relative to multithreading.
Clarification - 12/1/17
Thank you to #Rob for pointing me to the answer here: stackoverflow.com/a/34386935/1271826! This answer has a great example that shows that depending on the type of architecture you are on (32-bit vs 64-bit), you can get an undefined result when using a primitive property.
Although this is a great step towards answering my question, I still wonder two things:
If there is a multithreading difference when accessing a primitive value property on the stack vs heap (as noted in my previous clarification)?
If you restrict a program to running on one architecture, can you still find yourself in an undefended state when access a primitive value property and why?
I should note that here has been a lot of conversation around atomic vs nonatomic in response to this question. Although this is generally an important concept, this question has little to do with preventing undefined multithreading behavior by using the atomic property modifier or any other thread safety approach such as using GCD.
If your primitive value type property is atomic, then you're assured it cannot be corrupted because your reading it from one thread while setting it from another (as long as you only use the accessor methods, and not interact with the backing ivar directly). That's the entire purpose of atomic. And, as you suggest, this only applicable to fundamental data types (or objects that are both immutable and stateless). But in these narrow cases, atomic can be useful.
Having said that, this is a far cry from concluding that the app is thread-safe. It only assures you that the access to that one property is thread-safe. But often thread-safety must be considered within a broader context. (I know you assure us that this is not the case here, but I qualify this for future readers who too quickly jump to the conclusion that atomic is sufficient to achieve thread-safety. It often is not.)
For example, if your NSInteger property is "how many items are in this cache object", then not only must that NSInteger have its access synchronized, but it must be also be synchronized in conjunction with all interactions with the cache object (e.g. the "add item to cache" and "remove item from cache" tasks, too). And, in these cases, since you'll synchronize all interaction with this broader object somehow (e.g. with GCD queue, locks, #synchronized directive, whatever), making the NSInteger property atomic then becomes redundant and therefore modestly less efficient.
Bottom line, in limited situations, atomic can provide thread-safety for fundamental data types, but frequently it is insufficient when viewed in a broader context.
You later say that you don't care about race conditions. For what it's worth, Apple argues that there is no such thing as a benign race. See WWDC 2016 video Thread Sanitizer and Static Analysis (about 14:40 into it).
Anyway, you suggest you are merely concerned whether the value can be corrupted or whether the app will crash:
I am wondering if I can get into a similar situation where I read a corrupt value when reading and writing from multiple threads (and the app will crash)?
The bottom line is that if you're reading from one thread while mutating on another, the behavior is simply undefined. It could vary. You are simply well advised to avoid this scenario.
In practice, it's a function of the target architecture. For example on 64-bit type (e.g. long long) on 32-bit x86 target, you can easily retrieve a corrupt value, where one half of the 64-bit value is set and the other is not. (See https://stackoverflow.com/a/34386935/1271826 for example.) This results in merely non-sensical, invalid numeric values when dealing with primitive types. For pointers to objects, this obviously would have catestrophic implications.
But even if you're in an environment where no problems are manifested, it's an incredibly fragile approach to eschew synchronization to achieve thread-safety. It could easily break when run on new, unanticipated hardware architectures or compiled under different configuration. I'd encourage you to watch that Thread Sanitizer and Static Analysis video for more information.
Related
In Android, I could safely access and modify primitive types from different threads. I used this to share data between my OpenGL draw loop and user settings that were modified in the main thread Android UI. By storing each setting in a primitive type and making each independent of the others' values, it was thread-safe to modify all these variables without using locks or the synchronize keyword.
Is this also true in Objective-C? I read that placing atomic on a variable essentially causes the synthesized getter and setter to use locks, similar to using synchronized methods in Java. And I've read that the reason for this is so an object does not get partially modified while it's being read by another thread.
But are primitive types safe from being partially modified, as they are in Java? If that is the case, it seems like I could use my same old paradigm from Java for sharing data between threads. But then the atomic keyword would be pointless for a primitive, correct?
I also read that a more robust and faster solution than using atomic variables is to copy objects before using them if they are accessed from multiple threads. But I'm not sure how that could be accomplished. Couldn't a nonatomic object get modified while it's in the process of being copied, thereby corrupting the copy?
Primitive types aren't guaranteed to be safe from being partially modified because modifications to primitive types aren't guaranteed to be atomic in C and Objective-C inherits from there. C's only guarantees concern sequence points and there's no requirement that the processing between two sequence points be atomic — a rule of thumb is that each full expression is a sequence point.
In practice, modifying primitives is often a two-step process; the modification is made in a register and then written out to memory. It's very unlikely that the write itself will not be atomic but there's also no guarantee of when it will occur versus the modification. Even with the volatile qualification, the only guarantees provided are in terms of sequence points.
Apple exposes some C functions for atomic actions via OSAtomic.h that map directly to the specialised atomic instructions that CPUs offer for the implementation of concurrency mechanisms. It's possible you could use one of those more directly than via a heavy-handed mutex.
Common patterns in Objective-C are:
immutable objects and functional transformations — there are memory management reasons as well but that's partly why NSString, NSArray, etc, are specifically distinct from NSMutableString, NSMutableArray, etc;
serial dispatch queues, which can be combined with copy-modify-replace by copying on the queue, going off somewhere else to modify, then jumping back onto the queue to replace;
such #synchronizeds, NSConditionLocks or other explicit synchronisation mechanisms as are appropriate.
The main thread itself is a serial dispatch queue, which is why you can ignore the issue of concurrency entirely if you restrict yourself to it.
Atomic synthesized #properties are immune to concurrent partial updates. The accessor methods will use a lock if necessary on that architecture.
In general, primitive types in C are not necessarily safe with respect to concurrent partial updates.
I don't believe you can partially modify a primitive type, that's part of what makes them primitive. You either modify it or you don't. In that sense, I would say that they are thread safe.
You are correct when you say that the atomic keyword would be pointless for a primitive type.
Someone already took a stab at this here:
Objective-c properties for primitive types
So I was reading this article about an attempt to remove the global interpreter lock (GIL) from the Python interpreter to improve multithreading performance and saw something interesting.
It turns out that one of the places where removing the GIL actually made things worse was in memory management:
With free-threading, reference counting operations lose their thread-safety. Thus, the patch introduces a global reference-counting mutex lock along with atomic operations for updating the count. On Unix, locking is implemented using a standard pthread_mutex_t lock (wrapped inside a PyMutex structure) and the following functions...
...On Unix, it must be emphasized that simple reference count manipulation has been replaced by no fewer than three function calls, plus the overhead of the actual locking. It's far more expensive...
...Clearly fine-grained locking of reference counts is the major culprit behind the poor performance, but even if you take away the locking, the reference counting performance is still very sensitive to any kind of extra overhead (e.g., function call, etc.). In this case, the performance is still about twice as slow as Python with the GIL.
and later:
Reference counting is a really lousy memory-management technique for free-threading. This was already widely known, but the performance numbers put a more concrete figure on it. This will definitely be the most challenging issue for anyone attempting a GIL removal patch.
So the question is, if reference counting is so lousy for threading, how does Objective-C do it? I've written multithreaded Objective-C apps, and haven't noticed much of an overhead for memory management. Are they doing something else? Like some kind of per object lock instead of a global one? Is Objective-C's reference counting actually technically unsafe with threads? I'm not enough of a concurrency expert to really speculate much, but I'd be interested in knowing.
There is overhead and it can be significant in rare cases (like, for example, micro-benchmarks ;), regardless of the optimizations that are in place (of which, there are many). The normal case, though, is optimized for un-contended manipulation of the reference count for the object.
So the question is, if reference counting is so lousy for threading, how does Objective-C do it?
There are multiple locks in play and, effectively, a retain/release on any given object selects a random lock (but always the same lock) for that object. Thus, reducing lock contention while not requiring one lock per object.
(And what Catfish_man said; some classes will implement their own reference counting scheme to use class-specific locking primitives to avoid contention and/or optimize for their specific needs.)
The implementation details are more complex.
Is Objectice-C's reference counting actually technically unsafe with threads?
Nope -- it is safe in regards to threads.
In reality, typical code will call retain and release quite infrequently, compared to other operations. Thus, even if there were significant overhead on those code paths, it would be amortized across all the other operations in the app (where, say, pushing pixels to the screen is really expensive, by comparison).
If an object is shared across threads (bad idea, in general), then the locking overhead protecting the data access and manipulation will generally be vastly greater than the retain/release overhead because of the infrequency of retaining/releasing.
As far as Python's GIL overhead is concerned, I would bet that it has more to do with how often the reference count is incremented and decremented as a part of normal interpreter operations.
In addition to what bbum said, a lot of the most frequently thrown around objects in Cocoa override the normal reference counting mechanisms and store a refcount inline in the object, which they manipulate with atomic add and subtract instructions rather than locking.
(edit from the future: Objective-C now automatically does this optimization on modern Apple platforms, by mixing the refcount in with the 'isa' pointer)
I have ARC code of the following form:
NSMutableData* someData = [NSMutableData dataWithLength:123];
...
CTRunGetGlyphs(run, CGRangeMake(0, 0), someData.mutableBytes);
...
const CGGlyph *glyphs = [someData mutableBytes];
...
...followed by code that reads memory from glyphs but does nothing with someData, which isn't referenced anymore. Note that CGGlyph is not an object type but an unsigned integer.
Do I have to worry that the memory in someData might get freed before I am done with glyphs (which is actually just pointing insidesomeData)?
All this code is WITHIN the same scope (i.e., a single selector), and glyphs and someData both fall out of scope at the same time.
PS In an earlier draft of this question I referred to 'garbage collection', which didn't really apply to my project. That's why some answers below give it equal treatment with what happens under ARC.
You are potentially in trouble whether you use GC or, as others have recommended instead, ARC. What you are dealing with is an internal pointer which is not considered an owning reference in either GC or ARC in general - unless the implementation has special-cased NSData. Without that owning reference either GC or ARC might remove the object. The problem you face is peculiar to internal pointers.
As you describe your situation the safest thing to do is to hang onto the real reference. You could do this by assigning the NSData reference to either an instance variable or a static (method local if you wish) variable and then assigning nil to that variable when you've done with the internal pointer. In the case of static be careful about concurrency!
In practice your code will probably work in both GC and ARC, probably more likely in ARC, but either could conceivably bite you especially as compilers change. For the cost of one variable declaration and one extra assignment you avoid the problem, cheap insurance.
[See this discussion as an example of short lifetime under ARC.]
Under actual, real garbage collection that code is potentially a problem. Objects may be released as soon as there is no longer any reference to them and the compiler may discard the reference at any time if you never use it again. For optimisation purposes scope is just a way of putting an upper limit on that sort of thing, not a way of dictating it absolutely.
You can use NSAllocateCollectable to attach lifecycle calculation to C primitive pointers, though it's messy and slightly convoluted.
Garbage collection was never implemented in iOS and is now deprecated on the Mac (as referenced at the very bottom of this FAQ), in both cases in favour of automatic reference counting (ARC). ARC adds retains and releases where it can see that they're implicitly needed. Sadly it can perform some neat tricks that weren't previously possible, such as retrieving objects from the autorelease pool if they've been used as return results. So that has the same net effect as the garbage collection approach — the object may be released at any point after the final reference to it vanishes.
A workaround would be to create a class like:
#interface PFDoNothing
+ (void)doNothingWith:(id)object;
#end
Which is implemented to do nothing. Post your autoreleased object to it after you've finished using the internal memory. Objective-C's dynamic dispatch means that it isn't safe for the compiler to optimise the call away — it has no way of knowing you (or the KVO mechanisms or whatever other actor) haven't done something like a method swizzle at runtime.
EDIT: NSData being a special case because it offers direct C-level access to object-held memory, it's not difficult to find explicit discussions of the GC situation at least. See this thread on Cocoabuilder for a pretty good one though the same caveat as above applies, i.e. garbage collection is deprecated and automatic reference counting acts differently.
The following is a generic answer that does not necessarily reflect Objective-C GC support. However, various GC implementaitons, including ref-counting, can be thought of in terms of Reachability, quirks aside.
In a GC language, an object is guaranteed to exist as long as it is Strongly-Reachable; the "roots" of these Strong-Reachability graphs can vary by language and executing environment. The exact meaning of "Strongly" also varies, but generally means that the edges are Strong-References. (In a manual ref-counting scenario each edge can be thought of as an unmatched "retain" from a given "owner".)
C# on the CLR/.NET is one such implementation where a variable can remain in scope and yet not function as a "root" for a reachability-graph. See the Systems.Timer.Timer class and look for GC.KeepAlive:
If the timer is declared in a long-running method, use KeepAlive to prevent garbage collection from occurring [on the timer object] before the method ends.
As of summer 2012, things are in the process of change for Apple objects that return inner pointers of non-object type. In the release notes for Mountain Lion, Apple says:
NS_RETURNS_INNER_POINTER
Methods which return pointers (other than Objective C object type)
have been decorated with the clang compiler attribute
objc_returns_inner_pointer (when compiling with clang) to prevent the
compiler from aggressively releasing the receiver expression of those
messages, which no longer appear to be referenced, while the returned
pointer may still be in use.
Inspection of the NSData.h header file shows that this also applies from iOS 6 onward.
Also note that NS_RETURNS_INNER_POINTER is defined as __attribute__((objc_returns_inner_pointer)) in the clang specification, which makes it such that
the object's lifetime will be extended until at least the earliest of:
the last use of the returned pointer, or any pointer derived from it,
in the calling function;
or the autorelease pool is restored to a
previous state.
Caveats:
If you're using anything older then Mountain Lion or iOS 6 you will still need to use any of the methods discussed here (e.g., __attribute__((objc_precise_lifetime))) when declaring your local NSData or NSMutableData objects.
Also, even with the newest compiler and Apple libraries, if you use older or third party libraries with objects that do not decorate their inner-pointer-returning methods with __attribute__((objc_returns_inner_pointer)) you will need to decorate your local variables declarations of such objects with __attribute__((objc_precise_lifetime)) or use one of the other methods discussed in the answers.
Can someone briefly explain to me how ARC works? I know it's different from Garbage Collection, but I was just wondering exactly how it worked.
Also, if ARC does what GC does without hindering performance, then why does Java use GC? Why doesn't it use ARC as well?
Every new developer who comes to Objective-C has to learn the rigid rules of when to retain, release, and autorelease objects. These rules even specify naming conventions that imply the retain count of objects returned from methods. Memory management in Objective-C becomes second nature once you take these rules to heart and apply them consistently, but even the most experienced Cocoa developers slip up from time to time.
With the Clang Static Analyzer, the LLVM developers realized that these rules were reliable enough that they could build a tool to point out memory leaks and overreleases within the paths that your code takes.
Automatic reference counting (ARC) is the next logical step. If the compiler can recognize where you should be retaining and releasing objects, why not have it insert that code for you? Rigid, repetitive tasks are what compilers and their brethren are great at. Humans forget things and make mistakes, but computers are much more consistent.
However, this doesn't completely free you from worrying about memory management on these platforms. I describe the primary issue to watch out for (retain cycles) in my answer here, which may require a little thought on your part to mark weak pointers. However, that's minor when compared to what you're gaining in ARC.
When compared to manual memory management and garbage collection, ARC gives you the best of both worlds by cutting out the need to write retain / release code, yet not having the halting and sawtooth memory profiles seen in a garbage collected environment. About the only advantages garbage collection has over this are its ability to deal with retain cycles and the fact that atomic property assignments are inexpensive (as discussed here). I know I'm replacing all of my existing Mac GC code with ARC implementations.
As to whether this could be extended to other languages, it seems geared around the reference counting system in Objective-C. It might be difficult to apply this to Java or other languages, but I don't know enough about the low-level compiler details to make a definitive statement there. Given that Apple is the one pushing this effort in LLVM, Objective-C will come first unless another party commits significant resources of their own to this.
The unveiling of this shocked developers at WWDC, so people weren't aware that something like this could be done. It may appear on other platforms over time, but for now it's exclusive to LLVM and Objective-C.
ARC is just play old retain/release (MRC) with the compiler figuring out when to call retain/release. It will tend to have higher performance, lower peak memory use, and more predictable performance than a GC system.
On the other hand some types of data structure are not possible with ARC (or MRC), while GC can handle them.
As an example, if you have a class named node, and node has an NSArray of children, and a single reference to its parent that "just works" with GC. With ARC (and manual reference counting as well) you have a problem. Any given node will be referenced from its children and also from its parent.
Like:
A -> [B1, B2, B3]
B1 -> A, B2 -> A, B3 -> A
All is fine while you are using A (say via a local variable).
When you are done with it (and B1/B2/B3), a GC system will eventually decide to look at everything it can find starting from the stack and CPU registers. It will never find A,B1,B2,B3 so it will finalize them and recycle the memory into other objects.
When you use ARC or MRC, and finish with A it have a refcount of 3 (B1, B2, and B3 all reference it), and B1/B2/B3 will all have a reference count of 1 (A's NSArray holds one reference to each). So all of those objects remain live even though nothing can ever use them.
The common solution is to decide one of those references needs to be weak (not contribute to the reference count). That will work for some usage patterns, for example if you reference B1/B2/B3 only via A. However in other patterns it fails. For example if you will sometimes hold onto B1, and expect to climb back up via the parent pointer and find A. With a weak reference if you only hold onto B1, A can (and normally will) evaporate, and take B2, and B3 with it.
Sometimes this isn't an issue, but some very useful and natural ways of working with complex structures of data are very difficult to use with ARC/MRC.
So ARC targets the same sort of problems GC targets. However ARC works on a more limited set of usage patterns then GC, so if you took a GC language (like Java) and grafted something like ARC onto it some programs wouldn't work any more (or at least would generate tons of abandoned memory, and may cause serious swapping issues or run out of memory or swap space).
You can also say ARC puts a bigger priority on performance (or maybe predictability) while GC puts a bigger priority on being a generic solution. As a result GC has less predictable CPU/memory demands, and a lower performance (normally) than ARC, but can handle any usage pattern. ARC will work much better for many many common usage patterns, but for a few (valid!) usage patterns it will fall over and die.
Magic
But more specifically ARC works by doing exactly what you would do with your code (with certain minor differences). ARC is a compile time technology, unlike GC which is runtime and will impact your performance negatively. ARC will track the references to objects for you and synthesize the retain/release/autorelease methods according to the normal rules. Because of this ARC can also release things as soon as they are no longer needed, rather than throwing them into an autorelease pool purely for convention sake.
Some other improvements include zeroing weak references, automatic copying of blocks to the heap, speedups across the board (6x for autorelease pools!).
More detailed discussion about how all this works is found in the LLVM Docs on ARC.
It varies greatly from garbage collection. Have you seen the warnings that tell you that you may be leaking objects on different lines? Those statements even tell you on what line you allocated the object. This has been taken a step further and now can insert retain/release statements at the proper locations, better than most programmers, almost 100% of the time. Occasionally there are some weird instances of retained objects that you need to help it out with.
Very well explained by Apple developer documentation. Read "How ARC Works"
To make sure that instances don’t disappear while they are still needed, ARC tracks how many properties, constants, and variables are currently referring to each class instance. ARC will not deallocate an instance as long as at least one active reference to that instance still exists.
To make sure that instances don’t disappear while they are still needed, ARC tracks how many properties, constants, and variables are currently referring to each class instance. ARC will not deallocate an instance as long as at least one active reference to that instance still exists.
To know Diff. between Garbage collection and ARC: Read this
ARC is a compiler feature that provides automatic memory management of objects.
Instead of you having to remember when to use retain, release, and autorelease, ARC evaluates the lifetime requirements of your objects and automatically inserts appropriate memory management calls for you at compile time. The compiler also generates appropriate dealloc methods for you.
The compiler inserts the necessary retain/release calls at compile time, but those calls are executed at runtime, just like any other code.
The following diagram would give you the better understanding of how ARC works.
Those who're new in iOS development and not having work experience on Objective C.
Please refer the Apple's documentation for Advanced Memory Management Programming Guide for better understanding of memory management.
Or, Why I Didn't Use retainCount On My Summer Vacation
This post is intended to solicit detailed write-ups about the whys and wherefores of that infamous method, retainCount, in order to consolidate the relevant information floating around SO.*
The basics: What are the official reasons to not use retainCount? Is there ever any situation at all when it might be useful? What should be done instead?** Feel free to editorialize.
Historical/explanatory: Why does Apple provide this method in the NSObject protocol if it's not intended to be used? Does Apple's code rely on retainCount for some purpose? If so, why isn't it hidden away somewhere?
For deeper understanding: What are the reasons that an object may have a different retain count than would be assumed from user code? Can you give any examples*** of standard procedures that framework code might use which cause such a difference? Are there any known cases where the retain count is always different than what a new user might expect?
Anything else you think is worth metioning about retainCount?
*
Coders who are new to Objective-C and Cocoa often grapple with, or at least misunderstand, the reference-counting scheme. Tutorial explanations may mention retain counts, which (according to these explanations) go up by one when you call retain, alloc, copy, etc., and down by one when you call release (and at some point in the future when you call autorelease).
A budding Cocoa hacker, Kris, could thus quite easily get the idea that checking an object's retain count would be useful in resolving some memory issues, and, lo and behold, there's a method available on every object called retainCount! Kris calls retainCount on a couple of objects, and this one is too high, and that one's too low, and what the heck is going on?! So Kris makes a post on SO, "What's wrong with my memory management?" and then a swarm of <bold>, <large> letters descend saying "Don't do that! You can't rely on the results.", which is well and good, but our intrepid coder may want a deeper explanation.
I'm hoping that this will turn into an FAQ, a page of good informational essays/lectures from any of our experts who are inclined to write one, that new Cocoa-heads can be pointed to when they wonder about retainCount.
** I don't want to make this too broad, but specific tips from experience or the docs on verifying/debugging retain and release pairings may be appropriate here.
***In dummy code; obviously the general public don't have access to Apple's actual code.
The basics: What are the official reasons to not use retainCount?
Autorelease management is the most obvious -- you have no way to be sure how many of the references represented by the retainCount are in a local or external (on a secondary thread, or in another thread's local pool) autorelease pool.
Also, some people have trouble with leaks, and at a higher level reference counting and how autorelease pools work at fundamental levels. They will write a program without (much) regard to proper reference counting, or without learning ref counting properly. This makes their program very difficult to debug, test, and improve -- it's also a very time consuming rectification.
The reason for discouraging its use (at the client level) is twofold:
The value may vary for so many reasons. Threading alone is reason enough to never trust it.
You still have to implement correct reference counting. retainCount will never save you from imbalanced reference counting.
Is there ever any situation at all when it might be useful?
You could in fact use it in a meaningful way if you wrote your own allocators or reference counting scheme, or if your object lived on one thread and you had access to any and all autorelease pools it could exist in. This also implies you would not share it with any external APIs. The easy way to simulate this is to create a program with one thread, zero autorelease pools, and do your reference counting the 'normal' way. It's unlikely that you'll ever need to solve this problem/write this program for anything other than "academic" reasons.
As a debugging aid: you could use it to verify that the retain count is not unusually high. If you take this approach, be mindful of the implementation variances (some are cited in this post), and don't rely on it. Don't even commit the tests to your SCM repository.
This may be a useful diagnostic in extremely rare circumstances. It can be used to detect:
Over-retaining: An allocation with a positive imbalance in retain count would not show up as a leak if the allocation is reachable by your program.
An object which is referenced by many other objects: One illustration of this problem is a (mutable) shared resource or collection which operates in a multithreaded context - frequent access or changes to this resource/collection can introduce a significant bottleneck in your program's execution.
Autorelease levels: Autoreleasing, autorelease pools, and retain/autorelease cycles all come with a cost. If you need to minimize or reduce memory use and/or growth, you could use this approach to detect excessive cases.
From commentary with Bavarious (below): a high value may also indicate an invalidated allocation (dealloc'd instance). This is completely an implementation detail, and again, not usable in production code. Messaging this allocation would result in a error when zombies are enabled.
What should be done instead?
If you're not responsible for returning the memory at self (that is, you did not write an allocator), leave it alone - it is useless.
You have to learn proper reference counting.
For a better understanding of release and autorelease usage, set up some breakpoints and understand how they are used, in what cases, etc. You'll still have to learn to use reference counting correctly, but this can aid your understanding of why it's useless.
Even simpler: use Instruments to track allocs and ref counts, then analyze the ref counting and callstacks of several objects in an active program.
Historical/explanatory: Why does Apple provide this method in the NSObject protocol if it's not intended to be used? Does Apple's code rely on retainCount for some purpose? If so, why isn't it hidden away somewhere?
We can assume that it is public for two primary reasons:
Reference counting proper in managed environments. It's fine for the allocators to use retainCount -- really. It's a very simple concept. When -[NSObject release] is called, the ref counter (unless overridden) may be called, and the object can be deallocated if retainCount is 0 (after calling dealloc). This is all fine at the allocator level. Allocators and zones are (largely) abstracted so... this makes the result meaningless for ordinary clients. See commentary with bbum (below) for details on why retainCount cannot be equal to 0 at the client level, object deallocation, deallocation sequences, and more.
To make it available to subclassers who want a custom behavior, and because the other reference counting methods are public. It may be handy in a few cases, but it's typically used for the wrong reasons (e.g. immortal singletons). If you need your own reference counting scheme, then this family may be worth overriding.
For deeper understanding: What are the reasons that an object may have a different retain count than would be assumed from user code? Can you give any examples*** of standard procedures that framework code might use which cause such a difference? Are there any known cases where the retain count is always different than what a new user might expect?
Again, a custom reference counting schemes and immortal objects. NSCFString literals fall into the latter category:
NSLog(#"%qu", [#"MyString" retainCount]);
// Logs: 1152921504606846975
Anything else you think is worth mentioning about retainCount?
It's useless as a debugging aid. Learn to use leak and zombie analyses, and use them often -- even after you have a handle on reference counting.
Update: bbum has posted an article entitled retainCount is useless. The article contains a thorough discussion of why -retainCount isn’t useful in the vast majority of cases.
The general rule of thumb is if you're using this method, you better be damn sure you know what you're doing. If you are using it for debugging a memory leak you're doing it wrong, if you're doing it to see what is going on with an object, you're doing it wrong.
There is one case where I have used it, and found it useful. That is in doing a shared object cache where I wanted to flush the object when nothing had a reference to it anymore. In this situation I waited until the retainCount is equal to 1, and then I can release it knowing that nothing else is holding onto it, this will obviously not work properly in garbage collected environments and there are better ways to do it. But this is still the only 'valid' use case I've seen for it, and isn't something a lot of people will be doing.