If the code inside a block calls a method, will a retain cycle exist if that method references self? In other words, does all code downstream of a block need to use the weakSelf/strongSelf pattern?
For example:
__weak __typeof__(self) weakSelf = self;
Myblock block = ^{
[weakSelf doSomething];
};
. . .
- (void)doSomething
{
self.myProperty = 5; // Is this ok or does it need to use a weakSelf?
}
Objective-C is not scoped like you suggest, namely, you don't have access to weakSelf from within -doSomething. Furthermore, as you are calling -doSomething on weakSelf, "self" within that call is actually referring to the same object that weakSelf is.
In short, no, you shouldn't, you can't and you shouldn't.
Retain cycle will be triggered only if you retain self inside the block. Otherwise it will just throw a warning only.
This is fine you can use this. Because block retains every vars used inside, so retain cycle would be like
Self would retain block
If block retains self then
Self would again retain block
block would retain self, so cycle goes on
The thing you are doing in method is just message passing. Everytime block is called a message would be sent to self to doSomething. And you can retain self in doSomething method it wont trigger retain cycle because this method dont have cycle loop to self. Hope you understand :)
- (void)doSomething
{
self.myProperty = 5; // Is this ok or does it need to use a weakSelf?
}
you can do this to get rid of retain cycle problem.
[self class] __weak *weakSelf = self;
self.completionBlock = ^{
[self class] __strong *strongSelf = weakSelf
[weakSelf doSomething];
};
Related
I want to use an ivar in a method that is being called from a block. Is it fine to call the ivar directly from it without causing a retain cycle?
I have seen other questions related to calling properties- saying that we 'can' use self. Just wanted to make sure about ivars, can we call ivar directly or do we need to use self->_myInstanceVariable explicitly?
__weak MyClassName *weakSelf = self;
[MyBlockCreator myBlock:^{
MyClassName *strongSelf = weakSelf;
[strongSelf doSomething];
}];
- (void) doSomething {
_myInstanceVariable = someObject
// is it fine to use the ivar directly above?
// or do we want use self explicitly?
// like self->_myInstanceVariable
}
In this case you don't need to make the reference weak/strong at all, the only situation in which you can cause a retain cycle is if self references a block and a strong version of self is captured within that block. Since self doesn't retain the block in question, there would be no retain cycle even using a strong reference.
[Foo doWithBlock:^{
bar.baz = #"Hello World"; // Totally fine without weak/strong since bar doesn't retain the block here.
}];
In situations where self holds a strong reference to a block and the block refers to self, you need to make the reference weak outside the block then make it strong again inside.
__weak id weakSelf = self;
[self doWithBlock:^{
id strongSelf = weakSelf;
strongSelf.baz = #"Ok";
}];
//Parent.m
#import "Parent.h"
#implementation Parent{
dispatch_block_t _block;
NSTimer *_timer;
}
- (instancetype)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
[self commonInitialization];
}
return self;
}
-(void)commonInitialization{
__unsafe_unretained typeof(self) weakSelf=self;
//__weak typeof(self) weakSelf=self; the same conculsion
//apple doc:The object to which to send the message specified by aSelector when the timer fires. The timer maintains a strong reference to this object until it (the timer) is invalidated.
_timer=[NSTimer timerWithTimeInterval:0.5 target:weakSelf selector:#selector(sayHello) userInfo:nil repeats:YES];// make weakSelf retain count +1
_block=^{
__strong Parent *parent=weakSelf;//also make weakSelf retain count +1,but the actual is that this wont make self retain count +1
[parent sayHello];//
};
// my question is why weakSelf can make _block wont retain self,but _timer will retain self,it look like contradictory
}
-(void)sayHello{
NSLog(#"hello");
}
-(void)dealloc{
NSLog(#"Parent instance can dealloc");
}
#end
In _block I retain weakSelf again like NSTimer will retain target:weakSelf.
My question is why __unsafe_unretained or __weak can make _block unretained self but _timer not. It looks contradictory.
Retain cycles with blocks happen when a class instance has a strong reference to the class and the block, in turn, has a strong reference to that instance. By capturing a weak reference to the instance within the block (weakSelf), that captured reference can be set to nil. Making the reference within the block a strong reference only means that while the block is executing, the instance will not be dealloc'd (because the block still has a live reference).
The timer internally maintains a strong reference to the instance, just as the block does while it's executing. The main difference is that the timer is a long-lived object, and unless you invalidate it or nil all your references to it, the timer still exists, along with its strong reference to your instance.
I really do not know, whether I understood you correctly. Do you mean with "makes retained" "retains"?
However, the difference between the two pieces of code is the time of execution and how references are handled:
Keep in mind that not object references are retained, but the object they points to.
A. Timer
{
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf=self;
_timer=[NSTimer timerWithTimeInterval:0.5 target:weakSelf …];
}
With this code you create an additional local var called weakSelf, that does not retain the object it points to. Moreover, the extent ("lifetime") of weakSelf ends with the C-block (not the closure what you called __block), that means with the closing }. So we have:
{
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf=self;
// does not retain self; no problem
_timer=[NSTimer timerWithTimeInterval:0.5 target:weakSelf …];
// weakSelf dies, since it is weak nothing happens.
}
In such a case it is completly meaningless to weakify self:
{
id anotherSelf=self;
// does retain self: +1;
_timer=[NSTimer timerWithTimeInterval:0.5 target:weakSelf …];
// anotherSelf dies: -1
}
This is always balanced, because ARC care about it. No problem.
So why is there a retain cycle? It is "inside the timer." According to the documentation:
The object to which to send the message specified by aSelector when the timer fires. The timer maintains a strong reference to this object until it (the timer) is invalidated.
Therefore, lets go back to your example:
{
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf=self;
// does not retain self;
_timer=[NSTimer timerWithTimeInterval:0.5 target:weakSelf …];
// timer retains the object, weakSelf points to: +1.
// self retains the timer: +1
// result: retain cycle
// weakSelf dies, since it is weak nothing happens.
}
What -timerWithInterval… does, does not depend of the strength of weakSelf. The method does not even see the strength of the reference. It retains an object that the argument points to. Period.
B. Block
Having a block it is different:
{
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf=self;
// does not retain self; no problem
_block=^{
…
};
// weakSelf dies, since it is weak nothing happens.
}
As you can see, there is no problem. Why can be there a retain cycle? This is quite easy: Having a reference inside the block, the referred object is retained when the block is created (similar to timers) and the reference is strong(different to timers):
{
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf=self;
// does not retain self; no problem
_block=^{
… self … // the object self points to is retained, because self is strong. +1
… weakSelf … // the object weakSelf points to is not retained.
…
};
// weakSelf dies, since it is weak nothing happens.
}
This reference lives as long as the block lives. You have to read it correctly: It is like the reference itself has a longer lifetime. Therefore it depends of the strength of the reference.
So there is a big difference, whether you use weakSelf or self (or any other weak or strong reference.)
What is done inside the block …:
_block=^{
__strong id strongSelf=weakSelf;
};
… is meaningless, because this is done, when the block is executed and the local strongSelf will immediately lose its extent. (Again with the closing }.
ARC and block are all compiler work, compiler will add retain release and it will translate block to struct.
NSTimer will hold a strong reference to target, so it will send retain method (it may call objc_retain(id value) in ARC) to weakSelf, self hold timer as a instance variable, retain cycle happens.
Let's take about the block, by default block will retain any NSObject it captures when the block is move from stack to heap.
the _block(in your case) is a instance variable, when it is assigned a block, the block will be send a copy method, so it will move from stack to heap.
But if object it captured is with __weak or __unsafe_unretained attribute, it won't send retain method to it. The rules are defined by compiler, so it works.
If you want to learn the detail, check the source code runtime.c, you may also need to assemble your code because runtime.c doesn't have ARC code.
If you were confused about this line of code __strong Parent *parent=weakSelf , check this answer.
OK, this code on ARC holds self inside the block:
dispatch_async(someQ, ^{
[self doSomething];
});
and that can be solved by
__weak MyRequest *weakSelf = self;
dispatch_async(someQ, ^{
[weakSelf doSomething];
});
but what if doSomething has a lot of references to self? Because doSomething code will run inside the block isn't the same of all code of doSomething is on the block directly?
Do I need to pass weakSelf to doSomething so the method can use weakself references instead of self? Something like
__weak MyRequest *weakSelf = self;
dispatch_async(someQ, ^{
[weakSelf doSomethingUsingThisSelf:weakself];
});
By doing:
MyRequest *__weak weakSelf = self;
dispatch_async(someQ, ^{
[weakSelf doSomething];
});
...when there are no more references to self, weakSelf automatically becomes nil. So the async callback will end up sending doSomething to nil in the even the object is destroyed before the callback, which will do nothing.
If weakSelf is not nil, it's just a pointer to an object. When you send a selector to an object, there two implicit arguments: self and _cmd (see the documentation for IMP), section 6.1). So weakSelf becomes the implicit self in those calls. At that point, self is a strong reference, so the object won't get destroyed out from underneath you during the doSomething call chain, but referencing self from doSomething doesn't cause a reference count to increment because the block doesn't know anything about what goes on inside of doSomething.
I know this question has been asked before, but non of the solutions solve my problem, so I'm asking this again. I am trying to call a method on self as the result of a callback through a block. I'm getting the following error:
Capturing 'self' strongly in this block is likely to lead a retain cycle
- (void)viewDidLoad {
[super viewDidLoad];
self.webClient.completionHandler = ^{
[self populateData];
};
}
I tried doing something like the code below, and I'm still getting the same warning.
What's the solution?
__weak id myself = self;
[myself populateData];
Your code should look like this:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
[super viewDidLoad];
__weak id weakSelf = self;
self.webClient.completionHandler = ^{
[weakSelf populateData];
};
}
UIAdam gave the correct answer, but it's worth understanding why it is correct.
First, why did you get the warning?
self has a strong reference to webClient. webClient has a strong reference to completionHandler. completionHandler has a strong reference to self. So if all other references in your program go away, there is still a strong reference to each item in this cycle, so they can never be deallocated.
The attempt of writing
__weak id myself = self;
[myself populateData];
doesn't work of course. The block still references self because it is assigning it to myself. So no difference here.
UIAdam's solution of writing
__weak id weakSelf = self;
self.webClient.completionHandler = ^{
[weakSelf populateData];
};
means that weakSelf is a weak reference, and the block only contains a weak reference to self. So if all other strong references to self is gone, there's only a weak reference left. A weak reference doesn't keep self alive, so self gets deallocated.
Now what if that happens, but something else had a strong reference to webClient and your block is called? weakSelf is a weak reference, and weak references are set to nil when the object is deallocated. So you have to be prepared that weakSelf is nil when your block gets called. It is actually better to write
id strongSelf = weakSelf;
[strongSelf populatedData];
inside the block: strongSelf might be set to nil, or it will be set to self. But since it is a strong reference, it will stay non-nil until the block has finished. If it was not nil to start with.
I want a block that is available throughout a class, so it can be re-used many times by different methods in the instance.
I want that block to be able to reference self.
I want to not have the block create any nasty retain cycles by retaining self.
So far I am stumped. I managed to create block in the .m outside of any method definitions, and that got me partway - I could reuse the block everywhere, but I couldn't access self. I tried putting the block into an ivar but I'm doing something wrong there and now I'm getting random EXC_BAD_ACCESS. Can someone explain it simply, line by line?
Try the following:
typedef void (^MyBlock)();
#implementation MyClass
{
MyBlock block;
}
- (id) init
{
self = [super init];
if (!self)
return nil;
__block MyClass* _self = self;
block = [^ {
[_self sendSomeMsg];
} copy];
}
Note the __block storage type. Quoting this: "At function level are __block variables. These are mutable within the block (and the enclosing scope) and are preserved if any referencing block is copied to the heap."
This idiom may help you to remove the exc_bad_access (ARC code).
// get a weak reference to self
__weak id weakSelf = self;
block = ^()
{
// now the block is executing so we get a strong reference to self
// (this prevents self from disappearing until the block is done executing)
id strongSelf = weakSelf;
if (strongSelf != nil)
{
// do whatever work you intended for this block
}
};
I figured it out.
In MyClass.h:
typedef void (^DefaultFailureBlock)();
#property (copy) DefaultFailureBlock defaultFailureBlock;
in the init method:
__block MyClass *selfReq = self;
self.defaultFailureBlock = ^{
//use selfReq instead of self in here.
};
Interestingly, if you accidentally refer to self inside the block, you will have a retain cycle, and Analyze will not complain. I put an NSLog in dealloc to prove that it is actually being dealloced, and it is.
Oh and don't forget to [defaultFailureBlock release]; in dealloc too...