I ran into this problem while trying to fix a memory leak with the facebook-ios-sdk. How do i handle this situation when passing objects from no arc compiled classe to arc enabled classe?
This is the code inside the non arc compiled Facebook library: (i removed the unnecessary stuff which is not related to the problem) as you can see, result object is not autoreleased or released.
- (void)handleResponseData:(NSData *)data {
NSError* error = nil;
id result = [self parseJsonResponse:data error:&error];
self.error = error;
// Call the defined delegate wich is my AppDelegate didLoad method wich is arc enabled
[_delegate request:self didLoad:result];
}
- (id)parseJsonResponse:(NSData *)data error:(NSError **)error {
SBJSON *jsonParser = [[SBJSON alloc] init];
//gets the object wich leaks or gets overreleased
id result = [jsonParser objectWithString:responseString];
[jsonParser release];
return result;
}
Now if i try to add autorelease to the result object, i am facing a NSZombie when my arc code in my AppDelegate try's to release the object. However if i leave the code like this i'm facing memory leaks whit the result object which gets not released.
am i missing something basic? i can't get my head around this?
Thanx for any advice! Chris
The result returned from -parseJsonResponse:... is autoreleased already (see note at bottom).
Since the name of the -parseJson method doesn't begin with new, alloc, copy or mutableCopy, the compiler assumes that it returns an object with a +0 reference count, meaning it needs to be retained by the calling code if it is to be kept around, and doesn't need to be released if it's not being kept around. That's a long winded way of saying that it should neither leak nor cause a crash in your ARC code as written in your question.
Passing objects between ARC code and manual reference counting code doesn't require any special handling. You just need to make sure that methods' names match their memory management semantics in the non-ARC code. It certainly seems like you've done that in this case, although as you say, you didn't post your complete code.
Note: Presumably, objectWithString: returns an autoreleased object. If it doesn't it, it should (because it doesn't start with alloc, new, copy, mutableCopy).
Related
I bet that I could find the answer of this question from reading similar threads here or by googling, but I would like "hear" it first hand so to speak because it's an anomaly in my understanding.
So here's the thing, I have some code which a previous employee wrote and I see a lot of a certain type of construct which looks rather odd to me and I just want to clarify what is "right and wrong".
For example
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
[wwanServiceId autorelease];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
Here wwanServiceIdis a NSString member of the class, and to me this seem like a strange way to do it. As far as I understand it would begin by putting an autorelease on the object, basically saying: "whenever this object seem to not be used, release it for me I don't really care" then the copy will up the retain count +1 on.... wwanServiceId? or newValue? I guess the first.
Then to make me all more confused let's just quickly run through the life-cycle of the wwanServiceId-string..
basically the value will be set if we receive a notification which then from the notification-handler method will call the above -setWwanServiceId: method. other than that it will only ever be accessed for reading, so we are safe to say that it will at any given point:
put autorelease on object
retain a new string copy
Then there is one more quirk to this and this is where I am getting rather suspicious, namely in the -dealloc method which looks like this:
- (void) dealloc {
[[self wwanServiceId] release];
[super dealloc];
}
So what happens there? it will afaik release the wwanServiceId and as I said the only time it's memory management is being touched (if I haven't missed anything but I feel pretty sure) is to put an autorelease and retain it.
So to summarize:
Is the idea here that he thought that since he always retain a new copy after putting autorelease he need to release it in the end.. or well it's the only thing I can think about. Or just felt it would be safe to do an extra release in the end just in case..?
Because as far as I understand it, if this setter is called one time it will put an autorelease (-1 in future), do a retain (+1) and when destructor is called it will do the "final release" (-1).
Any ideas or suggestions helping me understand (if in fact I am wrong and the memory handling is correct as is) would be appreciated.
You wrote:
Here wwanServiceIdis a NSString member of the class, and to me this seem like a strange way to do it. As far as I understand it would begin by putting an autorelease on the object, basically saying: "whenever this object seem to not be used, release it for me I don't really care" then the copy will up the retain count +1 on.... wwanServiceId? or newValue? I guess the first.
This seems to point to the source of your confusion. wwanServiceId is a variable which can contain a reference to an object of type NSString. Variables do not have reference counts only objects do.
The previous employee wrote:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
[wwanServiceId autorelease];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
The expression [wwanServiceId autorelease] means: read the reference stored in wwanServiceId and autorelease the object that reference refers to - let's call that object A. Important: This does not delete object A; it will be released as some later stage and if at that time there are no remaining references object A will be deleted.
The expression [newValue copy] means: read the reference stored in newValue, use that to locate the object (call it object B), make a copy of that object to produce a new object (call it object C), and return a reference to the new object. This new object is owned by the caller of copy, so there is no need to retain it.
Finally the assignment stores the reference to object C into wwanServiceId.
So there is a maximum of three distinct objects involved:
A: the original object referenced by wwanServiceId, this is autoreleased to remove the ownership of wwanServiceId.
B: the object referenced by newValue, this is left untouched
C: a newly created copy of B owned through wwanServiceId
Why "autorelease" in the code and "maximum of three distinct" above?
The method could be called with newValue referencing object A, e.g. as in:
[self setWwanServiceId:[self wwanServiceId]]
If this was to occur and (a) release was used instead of autorelease and (b) there was no other reference to object A then the release would delete object A and then when [newValue copy] was evaluated newValue would be referencing a deleted object... The use of autorelease in this case delays the deletion until after the copy.
So what the previous employee wrote is not in any way "wrong", but as some of the other answer suggest it may be an unusual style. Another way you see this written is:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue
{
NSString *oldValue = wwanServiceId;
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
[oldValue release];
}
which also ensures any deletion occurs after the copy.
HTH.
To be short and helpful:
This is wrong:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
[wwanServiceId autorelease];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
This is right:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
if (newValue != wwanServiceId) {
[wwanServiceId release];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
}
To explain in short:
[wwanServiceId autorelease]; is an unnecessary sent message, because autoreleasing an object will reduce the retain count at some unknown point in the future. And in the next line you are wwanServiceId = [newValue copy]; instantly setting the instance variable. So, in your memory you now have a to be autoreleased object and a new object. One of them is too much The new object is, where the pointer of your IVar is pointing to. The old one is swimming in your Memory Pool with probably no reference to it :-)
Autorelease as few as possible or use ARC.
Oh: And in the dealloc method, please do not send the message like this:
[[self wwanServiceId] release];
Better like this:
[wwanServiceId release];
as Apple recommends to work directly with instance methods in init and dealloc methods, instead of using getters and setters there.
Debug it and have a look.
[wwanServiceId autorelease];
wwanServiceId has an address. This statement does not change it. It does decrement the retain count of this object though.
Thats it.
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
This statement creates a new object. The new object is a copy of newValue. Compare the addresses of the objects and you will see, that the address inn wwanServiceId will vary from the address of newValue and it will vary from the address that wwanServiceId did have just before the statement was executed.
The retain, that is implicit in copy will affect wwanServiceId, but it affects the new object, that was just creaed with copy. It does not affect the wwanServiceId object which was autoreleased during the statement before.
At some point after the execution of setWwanServiceId had finished, the old and autoreleased object will dissappear. (Assuming that the retain count is 0 now. If it is >0 because it is still retained for other reasons or just for error, then it will remain and potentially cause a leak.)
Once you understood that you will not question any more what is happening in the dealloc method. wwanServiceId is released. Meaning its retain count is reduced by 1. In the event that it is 0 then it will be deallocated automatically.
You could even autorelease it there too. The diffrerence to autorelease is basically that an autoreleased object is still around and available while the current method is being executed. Its release comes into effect at some later point in time.
But there is no reason for autoreleasing the object in dealloc.
In the example given there is not even a good reason to autorelease the object in the setter setWwanServiceId. You may well release the object directly in both methods.
Assuming wwanServiceId is the private ivar mapped by the getter wwanServiceId and setter setWwanServiceId, I think it is not correct to autorelease the ivar in the setter.
I would have coded the following:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
if (newValue != wwanServiceId) {
[wwanServiceId release];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
}
What I mean is: it is not necessary to give ownership of your var to the autorelease pool (which it may be drained at the end of the application). Simply release the ivar. If someone is using it, no problem, it will have a strong reference to it. Otherwise it will be deallocated.
I'm needing to quickly and simply parse an XML file in my app. The best solution for me seems to be something along the lines of an XML-to-NSDictionary converter which I can then dig through easier.
I chose to use this small class: http://troybrant.net/blog/2010/09/simple-xml-to-nsdictionary-converter/
However I'm confused about the returned NSDictionary* and its state in memory. The class method dictionaryForXMLData allocs and inits the class. objectWithData then goes off and does the heavy lifting returning the NSDictionary object which gets returned to the caller.
The confusing part for me is [reader release] before the return (I understand this must happen because of the way reader was created). My understanding of NSDictionaryis that all the objects will also be sent the release message which means the object that we're returning shouldn't have a retain count. Note that the object is created with a convenience method and only gets a retain count when it is added to the stack.
Should the return statement not be return [rootDictionary autorelease]. The problem I see with that is that there is no telling when rootDictionary will be released and depending on the size of the XML file it could sit there clogging memory? Or do I have it all wrong?
What they are doing is not correct. The object returned by objectWithData: is possibly simply a reference to something retained inside reader. And by releasing reader, you are potentially deallocating the rootDictionary you got earlier. Depending on the inner workings of the XMLReader class, it is possible that the thing they return from objectWithData: is retained and autoreleased; but that is an implementation detail, and you cannot depend on it (plus Cocoa memory management is local, so you should never care about what other functions do).
The correct thing to do would be to retain the rootDictionary you get, and then autorelease it (to balance the retain since you have to return it without ownership).
+ (NSDictionary *)dictionaryForXMLData:(NSData *)data error:(NSError **)error
{
XMLReader *reader = [[XMLReader alloc] initWithError:error];
NSDictionary *rootDictionary = [[[reader objectWithData:data] retain] autorelease];
[reader release];
return rootDictionary;
}
I encounter memory leak with stringWithCString, can anybody find the memory leak in stringWithCstring function?
SomeView *detailViewController = [[SomeView alloc] initWithNibName:#"SomeView" bundle:nil];
detailViewController.test = [NSString stringWithCString:"abc" encoding:UTF8_ENCODING];
the property in SomeView for test variable is
#property (nonatomic,copy) NSString* test;
Is my property declared correctly?
Are you releasing the string in your [SomeView dealloc] method like this:
- (void)dealloc
{
self.test = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
Whatever you use to "detect" the leak, how reliable is that?
Now I've never used properties, but the code above looks pretty correct -- the string should get released. The "stringWithCString:" will autorelease the string anyway, so there's no problem. However, the "copy" in your property seems to indicate that it makes a copy (huh? Surprise!) of the string, and even if I assume that object-type properties are released when the owning object dies -- if the owning object never dies then the copied string will never be released.
Maybe the memory leak detector really meant to say that the copy of that string is never released because you forgot to release the "detailViewController"? That copy would still be in the same source code line, so even if the memory leak detector can give an accurate location but only provides a line number you could be misled...
This code down below works as expected, cleans things up without Zombies. The class in which this method exists, is the owner of the Nodes, which are being released, yet, upon "Analyze" the following 2 issues show up.
If possible, could you help me understand why?
- (void) dealloc {
NSLog(#"Releasing [Doubly Linked List] .. ");
Node *thisNode = [self firstNode];
Node *nextNode = [thisNode next];
while (nextNode != nil) {
// If "Next node" is not nil, it means that
// "previous node" can now be released
NSLog(#" - releasing node \"%c\"", [[nextNode previous] charData]);
[[nextNode previous] release];
nextNode = [nextNode next];
}
[[self lastNode] release];
[super dealloc];
}
Click on the icon on the left of the message, it will show the path through the code that produces the error.
You are releasing something, [nextNode previous] that you do not own. In particular you did not alloc or retain it nor obtain it from a method that begins with new or copy so you do not have ownership of it and should not release it.
It is also very uncommon to release something not in your class, [[nextNode previous] release].
Now: [[self lastNode] release];
As above you did not obtain an ownership on the object you are releasing.
If lastNode is a property with retain you are subverting the setter and when later a value is assigned to lastNode via the setter there will be an extra release on the object and probably a crash. If it is not a property again this it very non-standard to release something that is returned by a method call.
Any releases with code of this form [[self lastNode] release] is non-standard and if be avoided there will be fewer ownership (retain/release) problems.
You will save a lot of time and grief by studying the Apple memory management documentation.
The issue is that you are not doing things according to the ordinary memory management conventions of Objective C and the static analyzer is getting confused. Basically, the Objective C class which allocates an object "owns" the object and is responsible for releasing it. Here, you are not using those conventions, so the analyzer is complaining, even if what you are doing works correctly.
See Apple's documentation for more on ownership.
I'm using the iPhone SDK 3.0, but I think this is a general misunderstanding of how things work w/ c & memory management.
I've overridden the viewWillAppear method like this
#implementation MyViewController
- (void)viewWillAppear:(BOOL)animated {
NSArray *items = [NSArray arrayWithOjbects:self.searchButton, self.trashCan, nil];
[self.bottomBar setItems:items animated:YES];
}
// other stuff...
#end
when I try to switch away from the view controller above and switch back everything works properly.
BUT, my inclination is to "release" the original pointer to "items" because I think a reference to the NSArray is now held by bottomBar.
But when I do this (see code below) and try to switch away from the UIViewController, I get a memory management error (-[CFArray count]: message sent to deallocated instance 0xd5f530).
- (void)viewWillAppear:(BOOL)animated {
NSArray *items = [NSArray arrayWithOjbects:self.searchButton, self.trashCan, nil];
[self.bottomBar setItems:items animated:YES];
[items release];
}
Do I need to not release items in this case? Or am I doing something wrong?
Obviously, the empirical evidence indicates that I shouldn't release "items", but it's not clear to me why this is the case.
Thanks for any info/"pointers"!
You do not need to release it because you never init'd it. [NSArray arrayWithObjects:...] returns an autoreleased object. You are not responsible to release it, because it has had the autorelease message sent to it when it returned from the method. You only have to release what you init! (If you had used [[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:...] you would have had to.)
When you call arrayWithObjects: on NSArray:
NSArray *items = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:self.searchButton, self.trashCan, nil];
You are returned an autoreleased array. The array is returned to you autoreleased, because you do not call alloc, new, or a method containing copy on it. This signifies that you do not need to memory manage that object. (Take a look at the Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa for more information)
However, it is then retained when you call setItems on self.bottomBar, passing the array as an argument, bumping its retain count up to 1, but then you release it, returning its retain count back to zero, which causes it to be deallocated.
Since the array is retained by self.bottomBar, this implies that it is managing the memory of the array. When it is no longer needed, the array will be released, implying that the class no longer needs the array, which is the correct way to manage the memory.
For heavens sake guys, just point people to the Memory Management Rules. Don't paraphrase them. Don't say "returns an autoreleased object" (which is not necessarily true, and is irrelevent even when it is true). Just point them to the rules.
The rules are a sum total of 9 paragraphs! There is no need to paraphrase them, abrieviate them, or restate them. They are clear and concise and explicit.
Read the rules, follow the rules, and you will have no memory management problems.
Here's the short version:
+[NSArray arrayWithObjects:] returns an object that you do not own, so no, you should not release it.
On the other hand, if you had done:
NSArray *items = [[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:self.searchButton, self.trashCan, nil];
this creates an object with a retain count of 1, so you would need to release it to prevent it from leaking.
Check out the Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa for more details.