I dont want to return manch because if i autorelease before i return it ,it becomes invalid to others. so i was thinking of this :
classA
-(NSMutableArray*)set:(NSMutableArray*)data
{
manch= [[data mutableCopy]autorelease] ;
int count=2*[data count]; //to not enter infinity loop
for(int k=0;k< count;k=k+2)
{
if(k==count-1)
[manch addObject:[NSNumber numberWithInt:![[manch objectAtIndex:k] integerValue] ] ];
}
data=[manch mutuableCopy];
return data;
}
My goal is to create a class that gets an NSMutuableArray do some calculations, than return it, and NOT TO BE DEPEND on this class anymore .
EDIT :
As people here ask.
in another classB(the user of the method above), i have in the interface :
NSMutuableArray *data ;
and on the .m file init method i have
data=[[NSMutuableArray alloc]init];
to use the function from my question, i do :
mIns=[[classA alloc]init];
data= [mIns set:[self decimalToBinary:autoWord]];
than i loose data later.
I dont want to return manch because if i autorelease before i return it ,it becomes invalid to others. so i was thinking of this:
This is an incorrect statement, you can return an autoreleased object, that's a sane thing to do. It's worth noting that you should design your method names correctly to inform the user what sort of object is returned. Any method whose name begins with alloc, new, copy, or mutableCopy will return a retained object. (Source)
In your case, your method name is set:, which informs the user of this method that it will return a non retained object (almost always an autoreleased object). This is because it isn't prefixed with any of those words mentioned above.
In that case, the issue you have is with the user of the method; they are not retaining a reference to the object being returned. As such, the user of the method should use it as so:
#interface ClassName () {
NSMutableArray* m_ivarArray;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray* propertyArray;
#end
NSMutableArray* data = ...;
// If using a property with retain, setting via "self." will retain it for you
self.propertyArray = [self set:data];
// If using an ivar (which doesn't do the retain for you)
m_ivarArray = [[self set:data] retain];
You can avoid these issues by using Automatic Reference Counting (ARC, More Information), which will handle this sort of memory management for you. It is still important that you use the correct naming conventions, as ARC will judge how to manage your memory based on this (in certain situations)
Update: After seeing your update, I can see the problem.
data=[[NSMutuableArray alloc]init];
This is creating a new instance of NSMutableArray, one which is correctly retained (due to what I mentioned before).
data= [mIns set:[self decimalToBinary:autoWord]];
This is replacing the object held in data with a new NSMutableArray, one that is autoreleased. The previous instance you created has been lost, and you've replaced it with another one. This new instance has not been retained, and as such, will be released unexpectedly.
To fix, you need to use this instead:
NSMutableArray* data = [[mIns set:[self decimalToBinary:autoWord]] retain];
You don't need to alloc/init a variable if it will be populated by some other object later on. I strongly suggest brushing up on how this all works, this might be a good start.
Related
Question
In my ARC project I have a class that manages objects, called LazyMutableArray. Some of the objects are actually nil, but users of my collection will never know about this; therefore I made it a subclass of NSMutableArray, and it tries to do "the same thing". In particular, objects are retained when added.
Now let's take a look at a memory behavior of other methods. It turns out that the NSArray destruction methods are documented by Apple to be an exception to this rule, in that they release, not autoreleased object.
There is some debate as to whether the combination of addObject: + objectAtIndex: + array destruction is documented by Apple to be never autoreleasing or simply happens to be in the examples I tested and in the example Apple includes.
How can I create in my subclass a method with exact same memory semantics?
Last update
After some thought, I've decided implementation based on NSMutableArray is more appropriate in this case compared to NSPointerArray. The new class, I should note, has the same retain/autorelease pair as the previous implementation.
Thanks to Rob Napier I see that no modification of my objectAtIndex: method would change this behavior, which answers my original question about this method.
On a practical level, several people said that any method can tackle an extra retain/autorelease pair for no reason; it's not reasonable to expect otherwise and not reasonable to try to find out which methods do this and which do not. It's been therefore a great learning opportunity for me on several levels.
Code (based on NSMutableArray) is available at GitHub: implementation, header, test (that's -testLazyMutableMemorySemantics).
Thank you all for participating.
Why I try to subclass NSMutableArray:
Subclassing foundation objects, I agree, is not always an appropriate solution. In tho case I have objects (in fact, OData resources), most of which have subobjects. The most natural class for an array of subobjects is obviously NSArray. Using a different class doesn't seem to make sense to me.
But for an OData collection this "array of sub objects", while, being an NSArray, must have a different implementation. Specifically, for a collection of 1000 elements, servers are encouraged to return collection in batches of (say)20, instead of all at once. If there is another pattern appropriate in this case, I'm all ears.
Some more detail in how I found this
I unit test the hell out of this collection, and values can be put into array, read from the array, and so forth. So far, so good. However, I realized that returning the object increases its retain count.
How do I see it? Suppose I insert two objects into lazy array lazy, one held weakly, one held strongly (*see the code *). Then retain count of weakSingleton is, as expected, 1. But now I read element:
XCTAssertEqual(weakSingleton, lazy[0], #"Correct element storage"); // line B
And in the debugger I see the retain count go up to 2. Of course, -retainCount may give me wrong information, so let's try to destroy the reference in array by
lazy[0] = nil; // yep, does the right thing
XCTAssertNil(weakSingleton, #"Dropped by lazy array"); // line C <-- FAIL
indeed, we see that weakSingleton is not released.
By now you probably guess that it's not just a retain, it's an autoreleased retain — putting an #autorelease around line B releases the weakSingleton. The exact source of this pair is not obvious, but seems to come from NSPointerArray -addPointer: (and unfortunately not from ARC's [[object retain] autorelease]). However, I don't want to return an autoreleased object and make method semantics different from its superclass!
After all, the method I'm overriding, NSMutableArray -objectAtIndex:`, doesn't do that; the object it returns will dealloc immediately if an array is released, as noted in the Apple's example. That's what I want: modify the method around line A so that the object it returns does not have an extra retain/autorelease pair. I'm not sure the compiler should even let me do it :)
Note 1 I could turn off ARC for a single file, but this would be my first non-ARC Objective-C code. And in any case the behavior may not some from ARC.
Note 2 What the fuss? Well, in this case I could change my unit tests, but still, the fact is that by adding or deleting line B, I'm changing the result of unit test at line C.
In other words, the described behavior of my method [LazyMutableArray -objectAtIndex] is essentially that by reading an object at index 0, I'm actually changing the retain count of this object, which means I could encounter unexpected bugs.
Note 3 Of course, if nothing is to be done about this, I'll document this behavior and move on; perhaps, this indeed should be considered an implementation detail, not to be included into tests.
Relevant methods from implementation
#implementation LazyMutableArray {
NSPointerArray *_objects;
// Created lazily, only on -setCount:, insert/add object.
}
- (id)objectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index {
#synchronized(self) {
if (index >= self.count) {
return nil;
}
__weak id object = [_objects pointerAtIndex:index];
if (object) {
return object;
}
}
// otherwise do something else to compute a return value
// but this branch is never called in this test
[self.delegate array:self missingObjectAtIndex:index];
#synchronized(self) {
if (index >= self.count) {
return nil;
}
__weak id object = [_objects pointerAtIndex:index];
if (object) {
return object;
}
}
#throw([NSException exceptionWithName:NSObjectNotAvailableException
reason:#"Delegate was not able to provide a non-nil element to a lazy array"
userInfo:nil]);
}
- (void)createObjects {
if (!_objects) {
_objects = [NSPointerArray strongObjectsPointerArray];
}
}
- (void)addObject:(id)anObject {
[self createObjects];
[_objects addPointer:(__bridge void*)anObject];
}
The complete test code:
// Insert two objects into lazy array, one held weakly, one held strongly.
NSMutableArray * lazy = [LazyMutableArray new];
id singleton = [NSMutableArray new];
[lazy addObject:singleton];
__weak id weakSingleton = singleton;
singleton = [NSMutableDictionary new];
[lazy addObject:singleton];
XCTAssertNotNil(weakSingleton, #"Held by lazy array");
XCTAssertTrue(lazy.count == 2, #"Cleaning and adding objects");
// #autoreleasepool {
XCTAssertEqual(weakSingleton, lazy[0], #"Correct element storage");
XCTAssertEqual(singleton, lazy[1], #"Correct element storage");
// }
lazy = nil;
XCTAssertNotNil(singleton, #"Not dropped by lazy array");
XCTAssertNil(weakSingleton, #"Dropped by lazy array");
The last line fails, but it succeeds if I change first line to lazy = [NSMutableArray new] or if I uncomment #autoreleasepool.
First, I would not make this subclass. This is exactly what NSPointerArray is for. Wrapping that into an NSArray obscures important details that this approach can break. For example, what is the correct behavior for [NSArray arrayWithArray:lazyMutableArray] if lazyMutableArray includes NULLs? Algorithms that assume that NSArray can never include NULL need to be wary of the fact that this one can. It's true that you can get similar issues treating a non-retaining CFArray as an NSArray; I speak from experience that this is exactly why this kind of subclass can be very dangerous (and why I stopped doing that years ago). Don't create a subclass that cannot be used in every case that its superclass can be used (LSP).
If you have a collection with new semantics, I would subclass it from NSObject, and have it conform to <NSFastEnumeration>. See how NSPointerArray is not a subclass of NSArray. This was not an accident. Faced with the same problem, note the direction Apple chose.
By now you probably guess that it's not just a retain, it's an autoreleased retain — putting an #autorelease around line B releases the weakSingleton. This seems to be because line A under ARC translates to [[object retain] autorelease]. However, I don't want to return an autoreleased object and make caller remember this!
The caller should never assume anything else. The caller is never free to assume that a method does not add balanced autoreleases. If a caller wants the autorelease pool to drain, that is their responsibility.
All that said, there is some benefit to avoiding an extra autorelease if it's not required, and it's an interesting learning opportunity.
I would start by reducing this code to the simplest form, without your subclass at all. Just explore how NSPointerArray works:
__weak id weakobject;
#autoreleasepool
{
NSPointerArray *parray = [NSPointerArray strongObjectsPointerArray];
{
id object = [NSObject new];
[parray addPointer:(__bridge void*)object];
weakobject = object;
}
parray = nil;
}
NSAssert(!weakobject, #"weakobject still exists");
My structure here (such as the extra nesting block) is designed to try to avoid accidentally creating strong references I don't mean to make.
In my experiments, this fails without the autoreleasepool and succeeds with it. That indicates that the extra retain/autorelease is being added around or by the call to addPointer:, not by ARC modifying your interface.
If you're not using this implementation for addObject:, I'd be interested in digging deeper. It is an interesting question, even if I don't believe you should be subclassing this way.
I'm going to elaborate on why I said this "looks a lot like a homework assignment." This will likely earn me many down votes, but it will also server as a good learning case for others who later find this question.
Subclassing NSMutableArray not a goal of a program. It is a means to achieve something else. If I were to venture a guess, I expect you were trying to create an array that lazily creates the object when they are accessed. There are better ways to do this without dealing with memory management yourself.
Here's an example of how I would implement a lazy loading array.
#interface LazyMutableArray : NSMutableArray
- (id)initWithCreator:(id(^)(int))creator;
#end
#interface LazyMutableArray ( )
#property (nonatomic, copy) id (^creator)(int);
#property (nonatomic, assign) NSUInteger highestSet;
#end
#implementation LazyMutableArray
- (id)initWithCreator:(id(^)(int))creator
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.highestSet = NSNotFound;
self.creator = creator;
}
return self;
}
- (id)objectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index
{
id obj = nil;
if ((index < self.highestSet) && (self.highestSet != NSNotFound)) {
obj = [super objectAtIndex:index];
if ([obj isKindOfClass:[NSNull class]]) {
obj = self.creator(index);
[super replaceObjectAtIndex:index withObject:obj];
}
} else {
if (self.highestSet == NSNotFound) {
self.highestSet = 0;
}
while (self.highestSet < index) {
[super add:[NSNull null]];
self.highestSet += 1;
}
obj = self.creator(index);
[super add:obj];
self.highestSet += 1;
}
return obj;
}
Fair Warning: I'm not compiling or syntax checking any of this code. It probably has a few bugs in it, but it should generally work. Additionally, this implementation is missing an implementation of add:, count, removeObjectAtIndex:, insertObject:atIndex:, and possibly replaceObjectAtIndex:withObject:. What I show here is just to get you started.
Right now in my application there is a producer that outputs an array of data; the output from that producer is bound (using the "Bindings" in the XIB file) to a Table View in my window. The producer spits out data, and it shows up in the window, all is well.
Except that I need to modify the data being shown. The producer is a third-party app, so I can't modify it directly, so I need to create a filter object that sits between the two.
The object I created looks like this:
#interface testFilter: NSObject {
id output;
}
-(void)setInput:(id)s;
#end
I changed the binding so that the output from the producer goes to my input:
[myFilter bind:#"input" toObject:producer withKeyPath:#"output" options:0];
and my implementation looks like this:
-(id)init
{
self = [super init];
output = nil;
return self;
}
- (void)setInput:(id)newInput
{
int nEntries = (int)[newInput count];
id copiedArray = [NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:3];
for (id entry in newInput)
{
id copiedEntry = [entry mutableCopy];
// blah blah make some changes to copiedEntry
[copiedArray addObject:copiedEntry];
[copiedEntry release]; // I'm done with it, copiedArray added his own retain
}
[self setValue:copiedArray forKey:#"output"];
[copiedArray release]; // I'm done with it, setValue/output added a retain
}
But this is crashing with the error:
"malloc: *** error for object 0x108e00870: pointer being freed was not allocated"
...until I remove the [copiedArray release] line.
Am I wrong in thinking that I should be sending [copiedArray release]?
What else can I check / what is the recommended way to debug problems like this?
id copiedArray = [NSMutableArray arrayWithCapacity:3];
This will create an autoreleased object. You shouldn't release autoreleased objects.
Either remove your release call, or change that line to this:
id copiedArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithCapacity:3];
That being said, consider using Automatic Reference Counting (ARC).
From Advanced Memory Management Programming Guide:
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.
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
In objective c, suppose I have an object Obj stored in a NSMutableArray, and the array's pointer to it is the only strong pointer to Obj in the entire program. Now suppose I call a method on Obj and I run this method in another thread. In this method, if Obj sets the pointer for itself equal to nil will it essentially delete itself? (Because there will be no more strong pointers left) I suspect the answer is no, but why? If this does work, is it bad coding practice (I assume its not good coding, but is it actually bad?)
It is highly unlikely that an object would be in a position to cause its own release/deallocation if your code is designed properly. So yes, the situation you describe is indicative of bad coding practice, and can in fact cause the program to crash. Here is an example:
#interface Widget : NSObject
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *array;
#end
#implementation Widget
#synthesize array;
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if(self) {
array = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
[array addObject:self];
}
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc
{
NSLog(#"Deallocating!");
[array release];
[super dealloc];
}
- (void)removeSelf
{
NSLog(#"%d", [array count]);
[array removeObject:self];
NSLog(#"%d", [array count]);
}
#end
and then this code is in another class:
Widget *myWidget = [[Widget alloc] init];
[myWidget release]; // WHOOPS!
[myWidget removeSelf];
The second call to NSLog in removeSelf will cause an EXC_BAD_ACCESS due to the fact that array has been deallocated at that point and can't have methods called on it.
There are at least a couple mistakes here. The one that ultimately causes the crash is the fact that whatever class is creating and using the myWidget object releases it before it is finished using it (to call removeSelf). Without this mistake, the code would run fine. However, MyWidget shouldn't have an instance variable that creates a strong reference to itself in the first place, as this creates a retain cycle. If someone tried to release myWidget without first calling removeSelf, nothing would be deallocated and you'd probably have a memory leak.
If your back-pointer is weak (which it should be since a class should never try to own it's owner, you will end up with a retain-cycle) and you remove the strong pointer from the array the object will be removed from the heap. No strong pointers = removed from memory.
You can always test this.
If you need a class to bring to a situation where its deleted, the best practice is to first retain/autorelease it and then make the situation happen. In this case the class won't be deleted in a middle of its method, but only afterwards.
I think we can say it might be bad coding practice, depending on how you do it. There are ways you could arrange to do it safely, or probably safely.
So let's assume we have a global:
NSMutableArray *GlobalStore;
One approach is to remove yourself as your final action:
- (void) someMethod
{
...
[GlobalStore removeObject:self];
}
As this is the final action there should be no future uses of self and all should be well, probably...
Other options include scheduling the removal with a time delay of 0 - which means it will fire next time around the run loop (only works of course if you have a run loop, which in a thread you may not). This should always be safe.
You can also have an object keep a reference to itself, which produces a cycle and so will keep it alive. When its ready to die it can nil out its own reference, if there are no other references and that is a final action (or a scheduled action by another object) then the object is dead.
I was told by a fellow StackOverflow user that I should not use the getter method when releasing a property:
#property(nonatmic, retain) Type* variable;
#synthesize variable;
// wrong
[self.variable release];
// right
[variable release];
He did not explain in detail why. They appear the same to me. My iOS book said the getter on a property will look like this:
- (id)variable {
return variable;
}
So doesn't this mean [self variable], self.variable, and variable are all the same?
For a retained property with no custom accessor, you can release the object by:
self.variable = nil;
This has the effect of setting the ivar (which may not be called 'variable' if you have only declared properties) to nil and releasing the previous value.
As others have pointed out, either directly releasing the ivar (if available) or using the method above is OK - what you must not do is call release on the variable returned from a getter.
You can optionally write custom getter behavior, which may result in completely different behavior. So, you cannot always assume that [variable release] has the same results as [self.variable release].
As well, you can write custom properties without an exclusive ivar backing them... it can get messy fast if you start releasing objects from references returned by getters!
There may be additional reasons that I'm unaware of...
A typical getter will look more like this:
- (id)variable {
return [[variable retain] autorelease];
}
So if you use [self.variable release] you have an additional retain and autorelease that you don't really need when you just want to release the object and that cause the object to be released later than necessary (when the autorelease pool is drained).
Typically, you would either use self.variable = nil which has the benefit that it also sets the variable to nil (avoiding crashes due to dangling pointers), or [variable release] which is the fastest and may be more appropriate in a dealloc method if your setter has custom logic.
not all getters take this form:
- (id)variable { return variable; }
...that is merely the most primitive form. properties alone should suggest more combinations, which alter the implementation. the primitive accessor above does not account for idioms used in conjunction with memory management, atomicity, or copy semantics. the implementation is also fragile in subclass overrides.
some really brief examples follow; things obviously become more complex in real programs where implementations become considerably more complex.
1) the getter may not return the instance variable. one of several possibilities:
- (NSObject *)a { return [[a copy] autorelease]; }
2) the setter may not retain the instance variable. one of several possibilities:
- (void)setA:(NSObject *)arg
{
...
a = [arg copy];
...
}
3) you end up with memory management implementation throughout your program, which makes it difficult to maintain. the semantics of the class (and how it handles instance variables' ref counting) should be kept to the class, and follow conventions for expected results:
- (void)stuff:(NSString *)arg
{
const bool TheRightWay = false;
if (TheRightWay) {
NSMutableString * string = [arg mutableCopy];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
[string release];
// - or -
NSMutableString * string = [[arg mutableCopy] autorelase];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
}
else {
NSMutableString * string = [arg mutableCopy];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
[self.a release];
}
}
failing to follow these simple rules makes your code hard to maintain and debug and painful to extend.
so the short of it is that you want to make your program easy to maintain. calling release directly on a property requires you to know a lot of context of the inner workings of the class; that's obviously bad and misses strong ideals of good OOD.
it also expects the authors/subclassers/clients to know exactly how the class deviates from convention, which is silly and time consuming when issues arise and you have to relearn all the inner details when issues arise (they will at some point).
those are some trivial examples of how calling release on the result of a property introduces problems. many real world problems are much subtler and difficult to locate.
I am just curious, do I need to add a further [name release] elsewhere to match up with the retain here in the getter?
- (NSString *)name {
return [[name retain] autorelease];
}
gary
No, but you shouldn't need to do this at all since you are not allocating anything. You could simply return name and that should be fine. Was there a reason you needed to add this retain/autorelease?
A little more explanation, what is happening here is that your retain count goes up by one when you do a retain, and then down by 1 when the scope exists because of the autorelease.
I don't know how your variable definition is in your class but the rule is that in your getter you should return the object unchanged for the reference count. It's the responsability of the caller to call retain if it want to keep a reference on it.
- (NSString*) name {
return name;
}
// caller
NSString* name = object.name;
[name retain]; // if necessary. If the string is used only in the context of a method you do not have to retain it.
If you are using the returned value as a field in another class you should define your field like this:
#property(retain, nonatomic) NSString* name;
With this a retain will be called when you assign to the variable.
No, this is fine. autorelease will cause the value to be released when the current autorelease pool is drained.
Every retain must be matched with exactly 1 of either release or autorelease.
However, I believe both the retain and autorelease are unneeded here. Generally you want to use that autorelease idiom because you've alloc'ed something in the method.
No. The autorelease will balance it out. I don't think, however, that the retain and autorelease would be necessary. You can simply use return name.
As others have said, you do not need to retain or autorelease the property. Since callers of the 'getter' method did not create the object, they do not own it, and you are safe to assume that they won't tinker around with its retain count.
But, callers could potentially change the value of the variable returned by the getter, which would affect the object. Therefore, it would probably be a better idea to return a copy of your variable, especially since it is an NSString. (Getters for NSString objects often return a copy.)
- (NSString *)name {
return [[name copy] autorelease];
}
In this scenario, you are creating a copy of the variable, so you 'own' it. By autoreleasing it before it is returned, you ensure that it will survive long enough to be used in the caller's scope, and that any changes they make to the 'name' variable will not affect the underlying object.
I am just curious, do I need to add a further [name release] elsewhere to match up with the retain here in the getter?
- (NSString *)name {
return [[name retain] autorelease];
}
No, because you are already releasing it. autorelease just means “send yourself release later”.
I think you should review the memory-management rules.
I think I might have figured it out:
if [myString] is created outside the method then your safe to use ...
return myString;
if on the other hand [myString] is created inside the method and therefore needs to be released and returned, then you use.
myString = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat: #"Send me home"];
return [myString autorelease];
This way the method sets [myString] to autorelease, Basically the object is created, set to autorelease and returned. The object will ultimately be released when the pool is destroyed.