I am pretty much a newbie to objective-c and as I started to program, I did not really grasp how to properly release objects. So, my project being an introduction into the world of Objective-c, I omitted it completely. Now, however, I think this project evolved in that it is too much of a pity to just leave it at that. So, all the allocs, copys and news aside, I have serious problems with understanding why my project is still leaking so much memory.
I have made use of the leaks tool in Instruments (look at screenshot), and it shows me that whole array of objects that are leaked. My question now: Is this something to be worried about, or are these objects released at some point ? If not, how do I find the cause of the leak ? I know that if I press cmd + e it shows me the extended detail window, but which of these methods should I look in ? I assume that it is my own methods I have to open up, but most of the times it says that i.e. the allocation and initialization of a layer causes the problem.
That said, I would like to know how to effectively detect leaks. When I look at the leaks bar of instruments, at the initialization of my game layer (HelloWorldLayer) a biiiig red line appears. However, this is only at it's initialization... So, do I have to worry about this ?
Here is the screenshot:
link to file (in order to enlarge) -> http://i.stack.imgur.com/QXgc3.jpg
EDIT:
I solved a couple of leaks, but now I have another leak that I don't quite understand :
for (int i = 1; i<=18; i++) {
NSMutableDictionary *statsCopy = (NSMutableDictionary *)CFPropertyListCreateDeepCopy(kCFAllocatorDefault, (CFDictionaryRef)stats, kCFPropertyListMutableContainers);
NSNumber *setDone = [num copy];
[levels setObject:statsCopy forKey:[NSString stringWithFormat:#"level%d", i]];
[levels setObject:setDone forKey:#"setDone"];
[statsCopy release];
[setDone release];
}
He happens to detect a leak with the deep copy, even though I release it...
The screenshot shows that there's a dictionary allocated in -[Categories init] that never gets released. Actually, there are many (2765) such dictionaries.
That method seems to be invoking -[NSDictionary newWithContentsOf:immutable:]. The stack trace here may be somewhat misleading due to optimizations internal to Cocoa. That's not a public method. It's probably called by another NSDictionary method with a tail call which got optimized to a jump rather than a subroutine call.
Assuming there's debug information available, Instruments should show you the precise line within -[Categories init] if you double-click that line in the stack trace.
Knowing where it is allocated is not the whole story. The Categories class may manage ownership of the object correctly. Some other class may get access to it, though, and over-retain or under-release it. So, you may have to track the whole history of retains and releases for one of those objects to see which class took ownership and neglected to release it. Note, this has to be done for one of the leaked dictionaries, not one of the malloc blocks that was used internally to the dictionaries. Go down two lines in the table for some promising candidates. Toggle open that line to see the specific objects. Double-click one or click the circled-arrow button next to its address (I forget which) to see the history of retains and releases.
Related
I'm just beginning to have a look at Objective-C and Cocoa with a view to playing with the iPhone SDK. I'm reasonably comfortable with C's malloc and free concept, but Cocoa's references counting scheme has me rather confused. I'm told it's very elegant once you understand it, but I'm just not over the hump yet.
How do release, retain and autorelease work and what are the conventions about their use?
(Or failing that, what did you read which helped you get it?)
Let's start with retain and release; autorelease is really just a special case once you understand the basic concepts.
In Cocoa, each object keeps track of how many times it is being referenced (specifically, the NSObject base class implements this). By calling retain on an object, you are telling it that you want to up its reference count by one. By calling release, you tell the object you are letting go of it, and its reference count is decremented. If, after calling release, the reference count is now zero, then that object's memory is freed by the system.
The basic way this differs from malloc and free is that any given object doesn't need to worry about other parts of the system crashing because you've freed memory they were using. Assuming everyone is playing along and retaining/releasing according to the rules, when one piece of code retains and then releases the object, any other piece of code also referencing the object will be unaffected.
What can sometimes be confusing is knowing the circumstances under which you should call retain and release. My general rule of thumb is that if I want to hang on to an object for some length of time (if it's a member variable in a class, for instance), then I need to make sure the object's reference count knows about me. As described above, an object's reference count is incremented by calling retain. By convention, it is also incremented (set to 1, really) when the object is created with an "init" method. In either of these cases, it is my responsibility to call release on the object when I'm done with it. If I don't, there will be a memory leak.
Example of object creation:
NSString* s = [[NSString alloc] init]; // Ref count is 1
[s retain]; // Ref count is 2 - silly
// to do this after init
[s release]; // Ref count is back to 1
[s release]; // Ref count is 0, object is freed
Now for autorelease. Autorelease is used as a convenient (and sometimes necessary) way to tell the system to free this object up after a little while. From a plumbing perspective, when autorelease is called, the current thread's NSAutoreleasePool is alerted of the call. The NSAutoreleasePool now knows that once it gets an opportunity (after the current iteration of the event loop), it can call release on the object. From our perspective as programmers, it takes care of calling release for us, so we don't have to (and in fact, we shouldn't).
What's important to note is that (again, by convention) all object creation class methods return an autoreleased object. For example, in the following example, the variable "s" has a reference count of 1, but after the event loop completes, it will be destroyed.
NSString* s = [NSString stringWithString:#"Hello World"];
If you want to hang onto that string, you'd need to call retain explicitly, and then explicitly release it when you're done.
Consider the following (very contrived) bit of code, and you'll see a situation where autorelease is required:
- (NSString*)createHelloWorldString
{
NSString* s = [[NSString alloc] initWithString:#"Hello World"];
// Now what? We want to return s, but we've upped its reference count.
// The caller shouldn't be responsible for releasing it, since we're the
// ones that created it. If we call release, however, the reference
// count will hit zero and bad memory will be returned to the caller.
// The answer is to call autorelease before returning the string. By
// explicitly calling autorelease, we pass the responsibility for
// releasing the string on to the thread's NSAutoreleasePool, which will
// happen at some later time. The consequence is that the returned string
// will still be valid for the caller of this function.
return [s autorelease];
}
I realize all of this is a bit confusing - at some point, though, it will click. Here are a few references to get you going:
Apple's introduction to memory management.
Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X (4th Edition), by Aaron Hillegas - a very well written book with lots of great examples. It reads like a tutorial.
If you're truly diving in, you could head to Big Nerd Ranch. This is a training facility run by Aaron Hillegas - the author of the book mentioned above. I attended the Intro to Cocoa course there several years ago, and it was a great way to learn.
If you understand the process of retain/release then there are two golden rules that are "duh" obvious to established Cocoa programmers, but unfortunately are rarely spelled out this clearly for newcomers.
If a function which returns an object has alloc, create or copy in its name then the object is yours. You must call [object release] when you are finished with it. Or CFRelease(object), if it's a Core-Foundation object.
If it does NOT have one of these words in its name then the object belongs to someone else. You must call [object retain] if you wish to keep the object after the end of your function.
You would be well served to also follow this convention in functions you create yourself.
(Nitpickers: Yes, there are unfortunately a few API calls that are exceptions to these rules but they are rare).
If you're writing code for the desktop and you can target Mac OS X 10.5, you should at least look into using Objective-C garbage collection. It really will simplify most of your development — that's why Apple put all the effort into creating it in the first place, and making it perform well.
As for the memory management rules when not using GC:
If you create a new object using +alloc/+allocWithZone:, +new, -copy or -mutableCopy or if you -retain an object, you are taking ownership of it and must ensure it is sent -release.
If you receive an object in any other way, you are not the owner of it and should not ensure it is sent -release.
If you want to make sure an object is sent -release you can either send that yourself, or you can send the object -autorelease and the current autorelease pool will send it -release (once per received -autorelease) when the pool is drained.
Typically -autorelease is used as a way of ensuring that objects live for the length of the current event, but are cleaned up afterwards, as there is an autorelease pool that surrounds Cocoa's event processing. In Cocoa, it is far more common to return objects to a caller that are autoreleased than it is to return objets that the caller itself needs to release.
Objective-C uses Reference Counting, which means each Object has a reference count. When an object is created, it has a reference count of "1". Simply speaking, when an object is referred to (ie, stored somewhere), it gets "retained" which means its reference count is increased by one. When an object is no longer needed, it is "released" which means its reference count is decreased by one.
When an object's reference count is 0, the object is freed. This is basic reference counting.
For some languages, references are automatically increased and decreased, but objective-c is not one of those languages. Thus the programmer is responsible for retaining and releasing.
A typical way to write a method is:
id myVar = [someObject someMessage];
.... do something ....;
[myVar release];
return someValue;
The problem of needing to remember to release any acquired resources inside of code is both tedious and error-prone. Objective-C introduces another concept aimed at making this much easier: Autorelease Pools. Autorelease pools are special objects that are installed on each thread. They are a fairly simple class, if you look up NSAutoreleasePool.
When an object gets an "autorelease" message sent to it, the object will look for any autorelease pools sitting on the stack for this current thread. It will add the object to the list as an object to send a "release" message to at some point in the future, which is generally when the pool itself is released.
Taking the code above, you can rewrite it to be shorter and easier to read by saying:
id myVar = [[someObject someMessage] autorelease];
... do something ...;
return someValue;
Because the object is autoreleased, we no longer need to explicitly call "release" on it. This is because we know some autorelease pool will do it for us later.
Hopefully this helps. The Wikipedia article is pretty good about reference counting. More information about autorelease pools can be found here. Also note that if you are building for Mac OS X 10.5 and later, you can tell Xcode to build with garbage collection enabled, allowing you to completely ignore retain/release/autorelease.
Joshua (#6591) - The Garbage collection stuff in Mac OS X 10.5 seems pretty cool, but isn't available for the iPhone (or if you want your app to run on pre-10.5 versions of Mac OS X).
Also, if you're writing a library or something that might be reused, using the GC mode locks anyone using the code into also using the GC mode, so as I understand it, anyone trying to write widely reusable code tends to go for managing memory manually.
As ever, when people start trying to re-word the reference material they almost invariably get something wrong or provide an incomplete description.
Apple provides a complete description of Cocoa's memory management system in Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa, at the end of which there is a brief but accurate summary of the Memory Management Rules.
I'll not add to the specific of retain/release other than you might want to think about dropping $50 and getting the Hillegass book, but I would strongly suggest getting into using the Instruments tools very early in the development of your application (even your first one!). To do so, Run->Start with performance tools. I'd start with Leaks which is just one of many of the instruments available but will help to show you when you've forgot to release. It's quit daunting how much information you'll be presented with. But check out this tutorial to get up and going fast:
COCOA TUTORIAL: FIXING MEMORY LEAKS WITH INSTRUMENTS
Actually trying to force leaks might be a better way of, in turn, learning how to prevent them! Good luck ;)
Matt Dillard wrote:
return [[s autorelease] release];
Autorelease does not retain the object. Autorelease simply puts it in queue to be released later. You do not want to have a release statement there.
My usual collection of Cocoa memory management articles:
cocoa memory management
There's a free screencast available from the iDeveloperTV Network
Memory Management in Objective-C
NilObject's answer is a good start. Here's some supplemental info pertaining to manual memory management (required on the iPhone).
If you personally alloc/init an object, it comes with a reference count of 1. You are responsible for cleaning up after it when it's no longer needed, either by calling [foo release] or [foo autorelease]. release cleans it up right away, whereas autorelease adds the object to the autorelease pool, which will automatically release it at a later time.
autorelease is primarily for when you have a method that needs to return the object in question (so you can't manually release it, else you'll be returning a nil object) but you don't want to hold on to it, either.
If you acquire an object where you did not call alloc/init to get it -- for example:
foo = [NSString stringWithString:#"hello"];
but you want to hang on to this object, you need to call [foo retain]. Otherwise, it's possible it will get autoreleased and you'll be holding on to a nil reference (as it would in the above stringWithString example). When you no longer need it, call [foo release].
The answers above give clear restatements of what the documentation says; the problem most new people run into is the undocumented cases. For example:
Autorelease: docs say it will trigger a release "at some point in the future." WHEN?! Basically, you can count on the object being around until you exit your code back into the system event loop. The system MAY release the object any time after the current event cycle. (I think Matt said that, earlier.)
Static strings: NSString *foo = #"bar"; -- do you have to retain or release that? No. How about
-(void)getBar {
return #"bar";
}
...
NSString *foo = [self getBar]; // still no need to retain or release
The Creation Rule: If you created it, you own it, and are expected to release it.
In general, the way new Cocoa programmers get messed up is by not understanding which routines return an object with a retainCount > 0.
Here is a snippet from Very Simple Rules For Memory Management In Cocoa:
Retention Count rules
Within a given block, the use of -copy, -alloc and -retain should equal the use of -release and -autorelease.
Objects created using convenience constructors (e.g. NSString's stringWithString) are considered autoreleased.
Implement a -dealloc method to release the instancevariables you own
The 1st bullet says: if you called alloc (or new fooCopy), you need to call release on that object.
The 2nd bullet says: if you use a convenience constructor and you need the object to hang around (as with an image to be drawn later), you need to retain (and then later release) it.
The 3rd should be self-explanatory.
Lots of good information on cocoadev too:
MemoryManagement
RulesOfThumb
As several people mentioned already, Apple's Intro to Memory Management is by far the best place to start.
One useful link I haven't seen mentioned yet is Practical Memory Management. You'll find it in the middle of Apple's docs if you read through them, but it's worth direct linking. It's a brilliant executive summary of the memory management rules with examples and common mistakes (basically what other answers here are trying to explain, but not as well).
I'm still trying to understand this piece of code that I found in a project I'm working on where the guy that created it left the company before I could ask.
This is the code:
-(void)releaseMySelf{
for (int i=myRetainCount; i>1; i--) {
[self release];
}
[self autorelease];
}
As far as I know, in Objective-C memory management model, the first rule is that the object that allocates another object, is also responsible to release it in the future. That's the reason I don't understand the meaning of this code. Is there is any meaning?
The author is trying to work around not understand memory management. He assumes that an object has a retain count that is increased by each retain and so tries to decrease it by calling that number of releases. Probably he has not implemented the "is also responsible to release it in the future." part of your understanding.
However see many answers here e.g. here and here and here.
Read Apple's memory management concepts.
The first link includes a quote from Apple
The retainCount method does not account for any pending autorelease
messages sent to the receiver.
Important: This method is typically of no value in debugging memory
management issues. Because any number of framework objects may have
retained an object in order to hold references to it, while at the
same time autorelease pools may be holding any number of deferred
releases on an object, it is very unlikely that you can get useful
information from this method. To understand the fundamental rules of
memory management that you must abide by, read “Memory Management
Rules”. To diagnose memory management problems, use a suitable tool:
The LLVM/Clang Static analyzer can typically find memory management
problems even before you run your program. The Object Alloc instrument
in the Instruments application (see Instruments User Guide) can track
object allocation and destruction. Shark (see Shark User Guide) also
profiles memory allocations (amongst numerous other aspects of your
program).
Since all answers seem to misread myRetainCount as [self retainCount], let me offer a reason why this code could have been written: It could be that this code is somehow spawning threads or otherwise having clients register with it, and that myRetainCount is effectively the number of those clients, kept separately from the actual OS retain count. However, each of the clients might get its own ObjC-style retain as well.
So this function might be called in a case where a request is aborted, and could just dispose of all the clients at once, and afterwards perform all the releases. It's not a good design, but if that's how the code works, (and you didn't leave out an int myRetainCount = [self retainCount], or overrides of retain/release) at least it's not necessarily buggy.
It is, however, very likely a bad distribution of responsibilities or a kludgey and hackneyed attempt at avoiding retain circles without really improving anything.
This is a dirty hack to force a memory release: if the rest of your program is written correctly, you never need to do anything like this. Normally, your retains and releases are in balance, so you never need to look at the retain count. What this piece of code says is "I don't know who retained me and forgot to release, I just want my memory to get released; I don't care that the others references would be dangling from now on". This is not going to compile with ARC (oddly enough, switching to ARC may just fix the error the author was trying to work around).
The meaning of the code is to force the object to deallocate right now, no matter what the future consequences may be. (And there will be consequences!)
The code is fatally flawed because it doesn't account for the fact that someone else actually "owns" that object. In other words, something "alloced" that object, and any number of other things may have "retained" that object (maybe a data structure like NSArray, maybe an autorelease pool, maybe some code on the stackframe that just does a "retain"); all those things share ownership in this object. If the object commits suicide (which is what releaseMySelf does), these "owners" suddenly point to bad memory, and this will lead to unexpected behavior.
Hopefully code written like this will just crash. Perhaps the original author avoided these crashes by leaking memory elsewhere.
I think there is something I'm missing about memory management. Here's the code:
NSString *string = #"foo";
[string release];
NSLog(#"%#", string);
I expect to get a memory error with that code, but instead the code is ran without errors. I noticed this as I was following a book and a scrollView was released before setting properties and adding a subView (but after being inserted in the main view).
My question is, when are objects really deallocated? Would this e considered good coding style?
This works because your string variable is pointing to a constant string that has been compiled into your application. retaining it does nothing and releaseing it does nothing as well. It exists in static memory, and it will only be destroyed when your program is unloaded from memory.
If you alloc, retain or copy an object, it is your responsibility to release it. Everything else is dealt with by the system and will be flushed with the auto release pool.
There are way too many memory management questions on SO already, have a quick look around to get yourself acquainted https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=memory+management+iphone
[edit]
Probably the most important part of your question that you need to understand is in your second last paragraph:
I was following a book and a scrollView was released before setting properties and adding a subView (but after being inserted in the main view).
I haven't seen this code but it is likely that you added the scrollView to your UIView instance. In these cases, the receiving view always retain its subview(s) so you are free to release it.
Once the UIView instance is released it wil also send a release message to all its subviews, which includes the scrollView.
Makes sense?
Sending a message to a deallocated object is undefined behavior. You might get a memory error, you might end up sending a message to another object, you might end up sending an message to a phantom version of the former object — it all depends on implementation details and details of the environment at runtime that are mostly out of your control. In this specific case, you're running into the implementation detail that NSString constants are immortal.
As for specifically when an object will be deallocated, that's also an implementation detail. If you don't own an object and don't have a reasonable guarantee that it will still be around (e.g. you just got it by doing [someArrayYouOwn objectAtIndex:0]), you should not be dealing with it.
The best policy: Just don't send messages to objects you no longer own. Follow the memory management rules.
Sorry for long description, however the questions aren't so easy...
My project written without GC. Recently I found a memory leak that I can't find. I did use new Xcode Analyzer without a result. I did read my code line by line and verified all alloc/release/copy/autorelease/mutableCopy/retain and pools... - still nothing.
Preamble: Standard Instruments and Omni Leak Checker don't work for me by some reason (Omin Tool rejects my app, Instruments.app (Leaks) eats too many memory and CPU so I have no chance to use it).
So I wanna write and use my own code to hook & track "all" alloc/allocWithZone:/dealloc messages statistics to write some simple own leaks checking library (the main goal is only to mark objects' class names with possible leaks).
The main hooking technique that I use:
Method originalAllocWithZone = class_getClassMethod([NSObject class],#selector(allocWithZone:));
if (originalAllocWithZone)
{
imp_azo = (t_impAZOriginal)method_getImplementation(originalAllocWithZone);
if (imp_azo)
{
Method hookedAllocWithZone = class_getClassMethod([NSObject class],#selector(hookedAllocWithZone:));
if (hookedAllocWithZone)
{
method_setImplementation(originalAllocWithZone,method_getImplementation(hookedAllocWithZone));
fprintf(stderr,"Leaks Hook: allocWithZone: ; Installed\n");
}
}
}
code like this for hook the alloc method, and dealloc as NSObject category method.
I save IMP for previous methods implementation then register & calculate all alloc/allocWithZone: calls as increment (+1) stat-array NSInteger values, and dealloc calls as decrement (-1).
As end point I call previous implementation and return value.
In concept all works just fine.
If it needs, I can even detect when class are part of class cluster (like NSString, NSPathStore2; NSDate, __NSCFDate)... via some normalize-function (but it doesn't matter for the issues described bellow).
However this technique has some issues:
Not all classes can be caught, for
example, [NSDate date] doesn't catch
in alloc/allocWithZone: at all, however, I can see alloc call in GDB
Since I'm trying to use auto singleton detection technique (based on retainCount readind) to auto exclude some objects from final statistics, NSLocale creation freezes on pre-init stage when starting of full Cocoa application (actually, even simple Objective-C command line utility with the Foundation framework included has some additional initialization before main()) - by GDB there is allocWithZone: calls one after other,....
Full Concept-Project draft sources uploaded here: http://unclemif.com/external/DILeak.zip (3.5 Kb)
Run make from Terminal.app to compile it, run ./concept to show it in action.
The 1st Question: Why I can't catch all object allocations by hooking alloc & allocWithZone: methods?
The 2nd Question: Why hooked allocWithZone: freezes in CFGetRetainCount (or [inst retainCount]) for some classes...
Holy re-inventing the wheel, batman!
You are making this way harder than it needs to be. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to roll your own object tracking tools (though it is an interesting mental exercise).
Because you are using GC, the tools for tracking allocations and identifying leaks are all very mature.
Under GC, a leak will take one of two forms; either there will be a strong reference to the object that should long ago been destroyed or the object has been CFRetain'd without a balancing CFRelease.
The collector is quite adept at figuring out why any given object is remaining beyond its welcome.
Thus, you need to find some set of objects that are sticking around too long. Any object will do. Once you have the address of said object, you can use the Object Graph instrument in Instruments to figure out why it is sticking around; figure out what is still referring to it or where it was retained.
Or, from gdb, use info gc-roots 0xaddr to find all of the various things that are rooting the object. If you turn on malloc history (see the malloc man page), you can get the allocation histories of the objects that are holding the reference.
Oh, without GC, huh...
You are still left with a plethora of tools and no need to re-invent the wheel.
The leaks command line tool will often give you some good clues. Turn on MallocStackLoggingNoCompact to be able to use malloc_history (another command line tool).
Or use the ObjectAlloc instrument.
In any case, you need to identify an object or two that is being leaked. With that, you can figure out what is hanging on to it. In non-GC, that is entirely a case of figuring out why it there is a retain not balanced by a release.
Even without the Leaks instrument, Instruments can still help you.
Start with the Leaks template, then delete the Leaks instrument from it (since you say it uses too much memory). ObjectAlloc alone will tell you all of your objects' allocations and deallocations, and (with an option turned on, which it is by default in the Leaks template) all of their retentions and releases as well.
You can set the ObjectAlloc instrument to only show you objects that still exist; if you bring the application to the point where no objects (or no objects of a certain class) should exist, and such objects do still exist, then you have a leak. You can then drill down to find the cause of the leak.
This video may help.
Start from the Xcode templates. Don't try to roll your own main() routine for a cocoa app until you know what you're doing.
I was just writing some exploratory code to solidify my understanding of Objective-C and I came across this example that I don't quite get. I define this method and run the code:
- (NSString *)stringMethod
{
NSString *stringPointer = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"string inside stringPointer"];
[stringPointer release];
[stringPointer release];
NSLog(#"retain count of stringPointer is %i", [stringPointer retainCount]);
return stringPointer;
}
After running the code and calling this method, I notice a few things:
Normally, if I try to access something that's supposedly dealloced after hitting zero retain count, I get a EXC_BAD_ACCESS error. Here, I get a malloc "double free" error instead. Why is that?
No matter how many lines of "[stringPointer release]" I add to the code, NSLog reports a retain count of 1. When I add more releases I just get more "double free" errors. Why aren't the release statements working as expected?
Although I've over-released stringPointer and I've received a bunch of "double free" errors, the return value still works as if nothing happened (I have another NSLog in the main code that reports the return value). The program continues to run normally. Again, can someone explain why this happens?
These examples are fairly trivial, but I'm trying to get a full grasp of what's going on. Thanks!
You're getting a double free error because you are releasing twice and causing two dealloc messages. =P
Keep in mind that just because you release doesn't doesn't mean the data at its memory address is immediately destroyed. It's just being marked as unused so the kernel knows that, at some point in the future, it is free to be used for another piece of data. Until that point (which is totally nondeterministic in your app space), the data will remain there.
So again: releasing (and dealloc'ing) doesn't necessitate immediate data destruction on the byte level. It's just a marker for the kernel.
There are a couple of things going on here. First, deallocing an object doesn't necessarily clear any of the memory the object formerly occupied. It just marks it as free. Unless you do something else that causes that memory to be re-used, the old data will just hang around.
In the specific case of NSString, it's a class cluster, which means that the actual class you get back from alloc/init is some concrete subclass of NSString, not an NSString instance. For "constant" strings, this is an extremely light-weight structure that just maintains a pointer to the C-string constant. No matter how many copies of that striing you make, or how many times you release it, you won't affect the validity of the pointer to the constant C string.
Try examining [stringPointer class] in this case, as well as in the case of a mutable string, or a formatted string that actually uses a format character and arguments. Probably all three will turn out to have different classes.
The retainCount always printing one is probably caused by optimization - when release notices that its going to be deallocated, there's no reason to update the retainCount to zero (as at this point nobody should have a reference to the object) and instead of updating the retainCount just deallocates it.