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.
Related
Without using ARC, for objects initialized using instance method we do release it via release call.
example:
Sample *obj = [[Sample alloc]init] ;
// some code here
[obj release] ;
Now for objects allocated using class methods should release be called?
example:
TestSample *testobj = [TestSample initCustom] ;
// some code here
should there be [testobj release]?
Let's consider this standard function provided by apple.
endpointWithHostname is a class method.
NWHostEndpoint *pNetHost = [NWHostEndpoint endpointWithHostname:#"0.0.0.0" port:#"21"];
so, should there be a [pNetHost release] for above call?
You said:
for objects initialized using instance method we do release it via release call
The fact that you called an instance method isn’t relevant. You own any object returned by any method whose name starts with alloc, new, copy, or mutableCopy. In your example, you called alloc, and therefore ownership has been transferred to you. That’s why you are now responsible for calling release.
However, if you called some instance method that didn’t start with one of those four prefixes, though, ownership would not be transferred to you, and you would not call release.
This is all summarized in the Advance Memory Management Programming Guide, which says:
Basic Memory Management Rules
The memory management model is based on object ownership. Any object may have one or more owners. As long as an object has at least one owner, it continues to exist. If an object has no owners, the runtime system destroys it automatically. To make sure it is clear when you own an object and when you do not, Cocoa sets the following policy:
You own any object you create
You create an object using a method whose name begins with “alloc”, “new”, “copy”, or “mutableCopy” (for example, alloc, newObject, or mutableCopy).
You can take ownership of an object using retain
A received object is normally guaranteed to remain valid within the method it was received in, and that method may also safely return the object to its invoker. You use retain in two situations: (1) In the implementation of an accessor method or an init method, to take ownership of an object you want to store as a property value; and (2) To prevent an object from being invalidated as a side-effect of some other operation (as explained in Avoid Causing Deallocation of Objects You’re Using).
When you no longer need it, you must relinquish ownership of an object you own
You relinquish ownership of an object by sending it a release message or an autorelease message. In Cocoa terminology, relinquishing ownership of an object is therefore typically referred to as “releasing” an object.
You must not relinquish ownership of an object you do not own
This is just corollary of the previous policy rules, stated explicitly.
You go on to ask:
let's consider this standard function provided by apple. endpointWithHostname is a class method.
NWHostEndpoint *pNetHost = [NWHostEndpoint endpointWithHostname:#"0.0.0.0" port:#"21"];
so should there be a [pNetHost release] ; for above call
The fact that it is a class method isn’t relevant. The key is that the method name doesn’t start with alloc, new, copy, or mutableCopy. That means that ownership has not been transferred to you and therefore you don’t need to call release. In this case, it is returning an autorelease object, so it will be released for you when the autoreleasepool is drained.
Obviously, if you want to claim ownership of the pNetHost object, you would do so by calling retain (and of course, at that point you’d then be responsible for eventually calling release to offset that retain).
Now, let’s consider your example:
TestSample *testobj = [TestSample initCustom];
// some code here
should there be [testobj release]?
No. But let’s answer this question by looking at the implementation of the method you called initCustom. It might be implemented like so:
+ (instancetype)testSample {
TestSample *obj = [[self alloc] init];
// perhaps more customization of `obj` here
return [obj autorelease];
}
But, there are two key observations in the above:
I didn’t start the method name with init. That prefix should only be used with initialization methods, which this method isn’t.
The convention is to start the method name with the name of the object type, using camelCase (i.e. starting with a lowercase letter). Hence, this TestSample class method name might be called testSample, like above, not initCustom.
Because the method name doesn’t start with alloc, new, copy, or mutableCopy, it should return an autorelease object. And because it is an autorelease object, the caller would therefore would not call release (unless, of course, it claimed ownership by calling retain).
By the way, the static analyzer (shift+command+B; or “Product” » “Analyze”) is exceptionally good at analyzing manual reference counting code.
For example, let’s imagine that I forgot to add the autorelease in the above testSample example. If I let Xcode analyze the code, the compiler would tell me about the problem:
If I add the autorelease back in and re-analyze, this warning will go away.
When writing manual reference counting code, the static analyzer is an invaluable tool. Always make sure you have a clean bill of health from the analyzer.
I've read apple documentation to assert that I was doing the memory management correctly but some questions raised.
Question 1:
They exhibit this code snippet as wrong :
in obj implementation:
- (NSString *)method1 {
NSString *string = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"%# %#", firstName, lastName];
return string;
}
... later ...
NString* myString = [obj method1];
NSLog("%#", myString);
[myString release];
Apple Doc :
You own the string returned by alloc, but lose the reference to it before you get a chance to relinquish ownership. Following the memory management rules, this would result in a memory leak, since the caller has no indication that they own the returned object.
Since I'm taking care of releasing the object that has been allocated previously, there is no memory leak, right ? What do they mean by "lose the reference to it" ?
It is wrong only regarding apple's memory management recommendations (the caller has no indication that they own the returned object) or this is also technically wrong ?
Question 2 :
This is about autoreleased objects availability :
Example code:
in obj1 implementation:
- (NSString *)methodA {
NSString *string = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"%# %#", firstName, lastName];
return [string autorelease];
}
in obj2 implementation:
- (NSString *)methodB:(NSString *)inputString {
NSLog("%#",inputString)
//*other call of methods with arg inputString*//
}
... later ...
NString* myString = [obj1 methodA];
[obj2 method2:myString];
How far (or deep) following my functions calls will the autorelease object returned by obj1 will be available. Regarding apple's documentations "Autorelease objects will be available within their variable scope". Should I retain it at some point ?
Q1: It is wrong only regarding apple's memory management recommendations (the caller has no indication that they own the returned object) or this is also technically wrong ?
Technically this is correct as you release myString after using it. However if you follow Apples guidelines for method naming (strongly recommended), this is clearly wrong:
You own any object you create.
You “create” an object using a method whose name begins with “alloc” or “new” or contains “copy” (for example, alloc, newObject, or mutableCopy).
method1 doesn't contain create, alloc, new or copy - thus per the guideline the caller doesn't own the object and doesn't have to release it.
Q2: How far (or deep) following my functions calls will the autorelease object returned by obj1 will be available. Regarding apple's documentations "Autorelease objects will be available within their variable scope". Should I retain it at some point ?
Auto-released objects will be alive until the closest Autorelease Pool is drained, see Autorelease Pools:
An autorelease pool is an instance of NSAutoreleasePool that “contains” other objects that have received an autorelease message; when the autorelease pool is deallocated it sends a release message to each of those objects. An object can be put into an autorelease pool several times, and receives a release message for each time it was put into the pool. Thus, sending autorelease instead of release to an object extends the lifetime of that object at least until the pool itself is released (the object may survive longer if it is retained in the interim).
...
The Application Kit automatically creates a pool at the beginning of an event cycle (or event-loop iteration), such as a mouse down event, and releases it at the end, so your code normally does not have to worry about them. There are three cases, though, where you might use your own autorelease pools:
...
So, if you need your instances to stay alive after the corresponding autorelease pool was drained, take ownership by retaining them. Otherwise you usually just let them be handled by the pool.
Since I'm taking care of releasing the object that has been allocated previously, there is no memory leak, right ?
right
What do they mean by "lose the reference to it" ?
you hold no pointers for the object, such that the object may not be accessed in your program.
It is wrong only regarding apple's memory management recommendations (the caller has no indication that they own the returned object) or this is also technically wrong ?
also correct. the static analyzer will prolly cry too
How far (or deep) following my functions calls will the autorelease object returned by obj1 will be available. Regarding apple's documentations "Autorelease objects will be available within their variable scope". Should I retain it at some point ?
this is a little more complex. autorelease pools are stacked upon each other by thread. that's why you must create one when entering a thread or new event loop iteration, and also why it is a good idea to create them explicitly when performing large operations which create many (autoreleased) allocations.
finally the last pool in the stack (for the thread) is destroyed at the end of the run loop's iteration.
if the object is created under an autorelease pool you create explicitly, then you must retain it to use it beyond the lifetime of the pool which it was created in.
similarly, you must formally retain/copy when passing to other threads. typically, this happens immediately - you just create a copy or retain the formal arguments when entering the implementation of the secondary thread.
I am still new to this Memory Management stuff (Garbage Collector took care of everything in Java), but as far as I understand if you allocate memory for an object then you have to release that memory back to the computer as soon as you are finished with your object.
myObject = [Object alloc];
and
[myObject release];
Right now I just have 3 parts in my Objective-C .m file: #Interface, #Implementation and main. I released my object at the end of the program next to these guys:
[pool drain];
return 0;
But what if this program were to be a lot more complicated, would it be okay to release myObject at the end of the program?
I guess a better question would be when do I release an object's allocated memory? How do I know where to place [myObject release];?
This is probably a little over-simplified, but in general, you are going to want to release it where you declared it.
If you declare an object INSIDE a particular method call, then by definition, you will be done with that object (or at least that handle to that object) at the end of that method call... release it then.
If you declare an object as an instance variable, then by definition you will be done with it when that instance is destroyed... release it in the dealloc method of that class.
Keep in mind that "release" does not equal "destroy." When passing objects around in your application, it may make sense to have more than one handle to that object stored in different places... in that case "release" means "I'm done with this object, but someone else may still be using it." Deallocation only occurs when the number of "handles" (retain count) reaches zero.
Apple has some fantastic documentation on memory management, I would check it out at developer.apple.com.
You essentially have three kinds of objects, each with a different pattern.
Transients Objects
In general, you should autorelease transient objects. These are objects that are allocated locally and do not need to exist beyond the method in which they are called. Or they are passed around from method to method.
Chain of Ownership
When one object exists as an instance field inside another, you should release the "owned" (or "child") object when the "owner" (or "parent") object goes out of existence. This is done in the dealloc method of the parent object:
- (void) dealloc {
[child release]; // child was declared as an instance variable
[super dealloc];
}
Lifetime of the Program
When an object is intended to exist for the lifetime of the program, it usually isn't necessary to call release at all, unless some kind of resource cleanup needs to occur. You can put this in applicationWillTerminate:, which you can look up in Apple's documentation.
(You should probably avoid having such objects, but that is a discussion for another question.)
You have to think in terms of ownership. When you take ownership of an object by calling alloc, new or retain, you're also responsible for releasing it, either by calling autorelease when you return an owned object to the caller, or by calling release.
A general rule is:
Local variable: release it within the same method. When you want to return it to the caller, use autorelease
Class member: release it in the dealloc method
I still have some unclear understand about release and autorelease. What are the difference between both of them? I have this code. For facebook connection. I crash it sometimes when I go to Facebook login, I doubting maybe it is because I don't release the object nicely.? Thanks for any helps
if (_session.isConnected) {
[_session logout];
} else {
FBLoginDialog* dialog = [[[FBLoginDialog alloc] initWithSession:_session] autorelease];
[dialog show];
}
The Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa will soon be your best friend. In brief, object instances in Cocoa are memory managed using reference counting (unless, of course you're using garbage collection on OS X). An object indicates that it wants to 'retain' an ownership interest in an other instance--keep it from being deallocated--by sending it a -retain message. An object indicates that it wants to release that interest by sending the other instance a -release message. If the number of objects that have 'retained' and ownership interest in an object drops to 0 (i.e. when the last of the owning instances sends a -release message), the instance with a 0 retain count is deallocated.
It's sometimes convenient to say "I want this instance to be released some time in the future". That's the purpose of -autorelease. Sending an -autorelease message adds the receiver to the current NSAutoreleasePool. When that pool is drained, it sends a -release message to all the instances in the pool. An NSAutoreleasePool is automatically created at the start of each iteration of each thread's run loop and drained at the end of that iteration. Thus, you can do something like this in a method:
- (id)myMethod {
return [[[MyObject alloc] init] autorelease];
}
The caller of this method will get back an instance that they can -retain if they wish to keep it. If they don't retain it, it will stick around at least until the enclosing autorelease pool is drained:
- (void)someOtherMethod {
...
id instance = [obj myMethod];
... // do more with instance, knowing that it won't be dealloc'd until after someOtherMethod returns
}
Releasing means you release that right away.
Autoreleasing means you want the variable to be released on the next autorelease pool.
You use autorelease when you want to keep retaining the variable but don't want to create a memory leak. You use release when you don't need the variable anymore.
Sample:
- (NSNumber *)return5 {
NSNumber * result = [[NSNumber alloc]initWitnInt: 5];
[result autorelease];
return result;
}
Why do we use autorelease there?
If we use [result release] instead, variable result will be destroyed AT that time. Which means that the returned value will be garbage.
If we do not release at all, variable result will be hold FOREVER incurring memory leak.
We can tell every caller to the function to release result but that would be a headache and prone to error.
So we use autorelease. We mark the variable to be released on the next autorelease pool. Basically we mark the variable to be released near the alloc. Hence the mantra alloc is paired with release in the same function holds all the time.
Actually, you'll do fine changing all release into autorelease. Your memory use won't be efficient, however, the effect is minimal. All variables, in all programming language is effectively autoreleased.
Anyway, use ARC.
background discussion:
objective-c is reference counted, so objects are deleted when the reference count reaches 0. release reduces the reference-count immediately, autorelease reduces it when the autorelease-pool is popped
when to use:
use autorelease when allocating the object if
you do not need it after the current function
it will be retiained by some other objet/function and will be released by a later by the retaining code
when the logic of the current function is tricky, so you would have to send release in a dozen different places before doing a return
use "manual" release
to revert a previous retain (in case you are implementing a library)
if you need precise control of freeing objects (e.g. they use lots of memory or the autorelease pool will not be popped for some time)
but really my freand:
read the Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa as suggested by Barry and run your code with instruments (zombies and leaks) often to catch any and almost all memory management errors.
Erik
According to the Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa:
The autorelease method, defined by
NSObject, marks the receiver for later
release. By autoreleasing an
object—that is, by sending it an
autorelease message—you declare that
you don't want to own the object
beyond the scope in which you sent
autorelease.
Also:
The autorelease method thus allows
every object to use other objects
without worrying about disposing of
them.
Here is the gist of some code I'm writing. I'm concerned that I am not properly addressing the retain/release issues with the array class method on NSMutableArray. Is the following actually leaking memory?
for(a while) {
// do stuff
NSMutableArray *a = nil;
// do stuff
if (!a) {
a = [NSMutableArray array];
}
} // for(a while)
You wouldn't leak memory in this code, and releasing the array yourself will cause a crash when the array is autoreleased at the end of the run loop.
Most Cocoa classes provide a couple of ways of making a new object, and are very consistent with this convention:
[[NSSomeObject alloc] init] : you are responsible for releasing the object (instance method).
[NSSomeObject someObject] : the object will be autoreleased for you, usually at the end of the run loop (class method). It's roughly equivalent to [[[NSSomeObject alloc] init] autorelease].
The proper use of the instance method would be:
a = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
// do stuff
[a release];
The proper use of the class method would be:
a = [NSMutableArray array];
// do stuff, array is in the autorelease pool
Note that Apple has recommended you stay away from the convenience methods as much as possible to improve performance. This is controversial advice, may not save much processor time, and separates the alloc-init from the release on an object you may not actually care much about keeping.
From the Cocoa Memory Managment Rules:
You take ownership of an object if you create it using a method whose name begins with “alloc” or “new” or contains “copy” (for example, alloc, newObject, or mutableCopy), or if you send it a retain message. You are responsible for relinquishing ownership of objects you own using release or autorelease. Any other time you receive an object, you must not release it.
Therefore with the line:
a = [NSMutableArray array];
you do not take ownership of the array, and it will be passed to you autoreleased. The memory will be handled for you automatically by the autorelease pool, and once it is no longer being used, it will be released for you. If you want to keep the array outside the current event, however, you must retain it, otherwise it will be released for you.
Yes, if you want it to stick around.
The returned object is an autoreleased object which will get deallocated when its autorelease pool gets purged.
All the array class methods that begin with "array" return these types of autoreleased objects.
Read this doc by Apple.
That's valid. It may help to just manage things manually when you have questions, to learn.
There is a convention:
init prefixes (init, initWithString:) indicate a retain count of 1, where
objectname prefixes (string, stringWithString:) indicates an autoreleased object
I have had the habit, for years, to release what I can at the call site, rather than pushing it to be autoreleased. Some autorelease issues then become painfully difficult to track down. Sure, autorelease is a convenience to the programmer in this case (provided nothing goes wrong), but adversely affects reuse, clarity, and performance (moreso in large codebases/programs).