I have an NSMutableSet of sprites which are each declared thusly:
SpriteEntity * newProjectile = [CCSprite spriteWithFile:#"tiles.png" rect:CGRectMake(48,0,16,16)];
Now, these are stored in an NSMutableSet which is retained (created by calling alloc and init). When I call removeObject on one of the SpriteEntities, what happens to it?
I would assume that garbage collection gets them, but I would like to know for sure.
Thanks
Removing an object from a collection drops its reference count by one. If no other reference points to the object, then its reference count reaches 0 and it is deallocated.
Yes, if the CCSprite class uses standard naming conventions, that method does not increase the reference count of the object it instantiates; therefor, the object's only owner is the NSMutableSet. Once the object has been removed from that set, the reference count is decreased by one, making it zero, and therefor queuing the object for deallocation.
Related
Suppose I have an object, for example an NSString, with retain count 5. When I call copy on it, I get a new copy of the object; does this new object have the retain count of its original object ?
It depends. copy is a convenience method for copyWithZone:,
and the "NSCopying Protocol Reference" states:
Your options for implementing this protocol are as follows:
Implement NSCopying using alloc and init... in classes that don’t
inherit copyWithZone:.
Implement NSCopying by invoking the
superclass’s copyWithZone: when NSCopying behavior is inherited. If
the superclass implementation might use the NSCopyObject function,
make explicit assignments to pointer instance variables for retained
objects.
Implement NSCopying by retaining the original instead of
creating a new copy when the class and its contents are immutable.
(I have modified the following two statements after all that feedback.)
For example, NSString is an immutable object, and copy just retains the object
and returns a pointer to the same object. Retaining the object might increase the
retain count, but not necessarily (as in the case of string literals.)
Copying an NSMutableString would probably create a new object and return that.
The new object would have its own retain count independent of the original object.
But you should not care about the difference. With manual reference counting,
copy returns an object that you own and have to release eventually.
With ARC, the compiler with automatically handle that.
copy returns an object that is a semantic [shallow] copy(1) of the object. What the copy method returns is an implementation detail; it may return the same object, it may return a different instance of the same class, or it might even return an instance of a different class.
Doesn't matter.
What matters is that the returned object, under manual retain/release, has a retain count of +1. Not 1, but +1. It might actually be 1, 42, 981, or -1. Doesn't matter.
All that matters is that you must balance that retain with a release or autorelease somewhere if you want to relinquish the object back to the system. Which may not actually cause it to be deallocated; that is an implementation detail of no concern (until optimization time, anyway).
(1) semantic [shallow] copy means that the object returned is an effective shallow copy. The state contained within the copied object (but not within objects contained within the object -- that is the shallow part) will not change when the original object changes state. For a mutable object, copy must actually create a new instance of some object -- most likely an immutable variant class -- that can contain the original state.
For an immutable object, the copy method might be simply implemented as return [self retain];. Or, in the case of static NSStrings (NSCFStrings), it might simply be return self; as retain/release/autorelease are no-ops on such strings.
No, a copied object will have a retain count of 1, just like a newly initialized object.
I highly recommend you read the Memory Management Guide if you wish to learn more.
If you're new to iOS development, the iOS App Programming Guide should be read first, and is a great use of your time.
I just noticed you didn't tag this as iOS specific, if you're coding for Mac, the Programming with Objective-C guide might be more appropriate for you.
To really get your head around this issue, don't think in terms of retain count, think in terms of pointer ownership (like ARC does).
If an object has a "retain count" of 5, that means five pieces of code somewhere are each holding a (strong) pointer to its memory address. If you copy that object, you get a pointer to the address of the new, copied object. The other five pieces of code are still pointing to the original object. There's only one piece of code pointing to the new object, so its "retain count" is one.
As noted in other answers, the Memory Management Guide definitely helps make this all clear.
Why did I put "retain count" in quotes? Because it's only useful as a general concept -- you shouldn't be using retainCount directly, or you'll hear from #bbum.
Objective-C plays some clever tricks when you ask it to copy objects, and as a result retain counts might not be what you think they should be.
Let's say you have an object pointer x with a retain count of n, and call the copy method which returns an object pointer y.
NSObject* x = ...;
NSObject* y = [x copy];
Then the rule is that if you release x n times, and release y once, all objects will be gone. Usually this is achieved by leaving x unchanged, and giving y a retain count of 1.
However, if x points to an immutable object, then Objective-C may decide that no copy needs to be done. The result is that y = x. Still, the rule above still applies: Releasing x n times and y once (even though they are the same object) will free all the objects involved. That's achieved by the copy method returning x with a +1 retain count.
Copy on mutable object like NSMutableArray will create a new copy and retain count will be 1 while copy immutable object like NSArray will point to same reference and increase the retain count by 1.
I am trying to create a mutable array in objetive c to hold references to objects. The objects in the array are regularly updated through user interaction and i want the array to automatically reflect changes made to the objects as they occur. Does anyone know if there is a way to do this? Perhaps store pointers to the objects instead of the objects themselves in the array? Any help would be much appreciated
Thanks in advance
Edit: I should mention that the objects are not exactly being updated in the strict sense of the word. They are being reinitialized. For ex if i had a controller:
MyController = [MyController alloc] initWith.....]]
the above call is made again with different init parameters.
The array always stores the pointers.... It holds a strong reference to it or sends it a retain message (if using non ARC).
So
[myMutableArray addObject: anObject];
adds the pointer to it.
If you now change anObject's properties and access it later through the array, it will
give you the pointer to just that object with the changes to its properties.
Edit:
No, if you alloc/init, you are creating a new object instance and allocate new memory for it on the heap (ie, it's another pointer to a new memory address).
What exactly are you trying to accomplish? There sure is a way, if you provide a little more detail.
If you alloc/init the object with the same class, why not just create a method to change the object's properties:
Instead of
myObject = [[MyClass alloc] initWithParameter1: one parameter2: two];
You could create a method that changes these properties:
[myObject updateParameter1: anotherOne parameterTwo: anotherTwo];
And, of course, the advantage of a mutable array is, that you can change its contents, so like #Eli Gregory pointed out, you can replace an object with another one (or rather the pointers to it).
Because you want to point to a newly allocated and initialized object, you can't 'update' the pointer, what you can do is 'replace' the pointer with a new one at a certain index.
A method you could use to do this is:
- (void)replaceObjectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index withObject:(id)anObject
so it would look something like:
NewViewController *new = [[NewViewController alloc] init..];
[myArray replaceObjectAtIndex:x withObject:new];
I am having problem with understanding one concept of memory managment, because I am new to objective C. For instance lets say I have a class Bar and Foo.
in main function I call:
Foo *foo = [bar getFoo]; //In my bar method I return foo
[foo retain];
[foo callMethod];
[foo release];
I know this is right way to do it. But why do we have to retain it after we get it from another object, does not this mean returning object has retain count 0 ? so we have to reatin it to count 1 to use it? but if it has reatin count 0, how do we know it is still there. We can assume since it is the next line that increment retain count that the object memory wont be realocated, but what if we have multi-threading program?
When an class method returns an object, it will autorelease it so you don't have to bother; typically:
- (Foo *)getFoo
{
return [[_foo retain] autorelease];
}
If you are only using foo for the lifetime of the calling method you don't need to retain it, as it won't be autoreleased until next time through the run loop, so your code should actually be:
Foo *foo = [bar getFoo]; //In my bar method I return foo
[foo callMethod];
If, however, you want to hold foo for a while, outside the scope of the calling method, you need to retain it and then release it sometime later.
One more thing; the convention for getter method names is simply "name", so your setter should be setFoo and your getter would be foo. Keeping to the naming conventions is a good idea as it lets you know what a method does, in say 7 months time, and tools like static analysis understand the conventions.
The method getFoo doesn't return an object with a 0 retain count. It returns an object with a +0 retain count which means that:
the object's retain count is not null (otherwise, the object wouldn't exist)
and the retain count wasn't altered by the invocation of the method, or if it was, it was in a balanced way (with as many release/autorelease as retain/alloc/new/copy).
Thus the lifetime of the object entirely depends on where and how it is retained. We don't know how long the object will be valid as any method invocation could release the object.
For example, let's consider the following code:
id anObject = [anArray objectAtIndex:0];
[anArray removeObjectAtIndex:0];
The object anObject isn't retained any more by the array as we removed it. Therefore it may have been destructed (but maybe it wasn't because it is still used somewhere else).
Generally, when getting an object from a method (other that alloc, copy, new or retain), we can assume that:
either the object was retained then autoreleased,
either the object is retained by the object that returned it.
So we know the object foo is valid until we return from the current method/function or we invoke a method/function that alter the state of the object bar, whichever comes first. After that, it may have been destructed.
So in your case, you can safely omit the retain/release pair.
However, it is very difficult to guaranty that an object doesn't get released unless we know the implementation of every method we invoke. Therefore, retaining (then releasing) every single object we get is the safer approach and that's what the compiler will do when you enable ARC (Automatic Reference Counting).
But that would require you to write a lot of retain/release and your code would become difficult to read, understand and maintain. Moreover, the more code you write, the more bugs you get (unless you never write bugs).
In conclusion, you don't need to retain an object unless you have a reason to suspect it could vanish otherwise.
How exactly does the addObject method of NSMutableArray work? Does it create a new instance and add it into the array or does it simply add a reference to the SAME object into the array?
If the answer is it only insert a reference to the object, then it leads to my next question:
Let's say I have the following method in one of my class ('list' is a NSMutableArray), gladly, this code works the way I wanted, but i just don't seem to fully understand why:
-(void)buyItem:(Item *)anItem
{
Item * newItem = [[Item alloc]init];
newItem.name = anItem.name;
newItem.details = anItem.details;
[list addObject:newItem];
[newItem release];
}
So basically after calling [list addObject:newItem], there would now be total of two reference pointing to the same object right(newItem, and another one in the 'list' array)?
But why does releasing the newItem object here, doesn't wipe out the one in the 'list' NSMutableArray? Aren't they pointing to the same Object?
When you are adding object to NSMutableArray using method addObject: it retains added object. This is why you can release it later and use afterwards by accessing using objectAtIndex: method.
It adds a reference and then increases the objects retain count by one. What you are doing is correct and it will still exist in the array with a retain count of one.
For your reference.
What increases an object's retain count?
It's important to understand the distinction between release and dealloc. release simply decrements the "retain count", except that when the count is decremented to zero, release goes on to dealloc the object.
In general (except where documented otherwise), when you pass an object reference (ie, pointer) to an Objective-C object, and it keeps a copy of that reference beyond the duration of your call to it, it retains the object on its own behalf, and it takes the responsibility to release the object when it is itself deallocated, or when the copy of the reference is nullified or overwritten.
So some where i have a leak which is related to deleting an object under certain circumstances.
Premise:
- I have an NSMutableArray of Tree objects (a Tree object knows how to draw itself).
- I have a reference pointer (Tree *selected) which basically points to whatever tree i last touched.
- Note that the *selected pointer is a weak reference.
Ok, so far so good.
Problem:
The leak arises when i delete a Tree. From the list i make sure the tree being deleted is releasing everything internally before removing it from the array (removing it from the array should automatically call release on it).
What i tried:
I noticed that my Tree *selected pointer is being assigned the touched tree via the self property:
self.selected = tree;
...and by doing this i know that it is being retained. So what i tried to do was call:
[self.selected release];
I called this right after the tree is removed from the array.
...but at which point it crashes essentially stating it was already released.
Question:
Why am i getting this error message? I removed it from the array, however my self.selected pointer still has a retained count, thus shouldn't i be releasing it?
Perhaps I should set it to nil after the removal process?
Or, perhaps I should set it to autorelease BEFORE the removal process?
Don't attempt to micromanage the retaining/releasing of your selected instance variable. If you want selected to be a weak reference, declare it with the assign attribute:
#property(nonatomic, assign) Tree *selected;
That way it will not be retained when you assign a value to it. Conceptually, it will "piggyback" on the reference that your NSMutableArray is keeping. So when you remove something from your NSMutableArray, do it a bit like this:
if (self.selected == toBeRemoved)
self.selected = nil;
[myArray removeObject:toBeRemoved];
If you didn't explicitly specify assign and your property was retaining its contents, you were most likely getting an exception because the next assignment to self.selected after removing an element caused another -release message to be sent to the old value, which had already been released by your [self.selected release] message.
What's [probably] happening is selected points to a deallocated object, not nothing.
I'd try
self.selected = nil;
instead of releasing it explicitly. That should take care of the retain count, too.
basically, i was assigning my weak references using 'self', thus internally calling retain. i removed the 'self' and now things are fine and dandy. :)
thanks!