In cocoa, ARC frees you of having to worry about retain, release, autorelease, etc. It also prohibits calling [super dealloc]. A -(void) dealloc method is allowed, but I'm not sure if/when it's called.
I get how this is all great for objects, etc., but where do I put the free() that matches the malloc() I did in -(id) init ?
Example:
#implementation SomeObject
- (id) initWithSize: (Vertex3Di) theSize
{
self = [super init];
if (self)
{
size = theSize;
filled = malloc(size.x * size.y * size.z);
if (filled == nil)
{
//* TODO: handle error
self = nil;
}
}
return self;
}
- (void) dealloc // does this ever get called? If so, at the normal time, like I expect?
{
if (filled)
free(filled); // is this the right way to do this?
// [super dealloc]; // This is certainly not allowed in ARC!
}
You are right, you have to implement dealloc and call free inside of it. dealloc will be called when the object is deallocated as before ARC. Also, you can't call [super dealloc]; as this will be done automatically.
Finally, note that you can use NSData to allocate the memory for filled:
self.filledData = [NSMutableData dataWithLength:size.x * size.y * size.z];
self.filled = [self.filledData mutableBytes];
When you do this, you don't have to explicitly free the memory as it will be done automatically when the object and consequently filledData are deallocated.
Yes, you put it in -dealloc just like you do under MRR. The only difference with -dealloc is you must not call [super dealloc]. Other than that, it's exactly the same, and will get called when the object is fully released.
As an aside, free() will accept the NULL pointer and do nothing, so you don't actually need that conditional in -dealloc. You could just say
- (void)dealloc {
free(filled);
}
Related
Forgiveness, please: I am a beginner. I was looking at another quesiton/answer and came across this code:
SpinningView *spinner = [[SpinningView alloc] initWithFrame:CGRectMake(0.0, 0.0, 20.0, 20.0)]
// Now let's take a look at the implementation of SpinningView's -initWithFrame: method
- (id)initWithFrame:(CGRect)frame
{
self = [super initWithFrame:frame];
if (self)
{
self.backgroundColor = [UIColor clearColor];
}
return self;
}
I believe that, in the second section of code, self points to the instance to which the message was sent that resulted in "self" being encountered, i.e., the result of [SpinningView alloc]. (Or doesn't that produce an instance?)
So, when you call self = [super initWithFrame:frame] on the 4th line of code, are you not reassigning the pointer value associated with "spinner"? I.e, are you not abandoning the memory you allocated in the first line? Or does the compiler someone know just to copy memory values instead of changing the pointer value? Or... what??
Thanks!
This is the standard idiom for the -init method of obj-c objects. The idea being that, whatever was allocated from +alloc doesn't matter, only what was returned from -init matters. Now, -init will usually just use the already-allocated object that's in self. But it's not required to. It is free to deallocate that object and create a new one. The classic example is when you alloc/init an NSString* you don't actually get back an instance of NSString*, you get back a concrete subclass. This is because NSString* is a "class cluster". So when you call +alloc you get back an NSString*, but when you call -init it frees that object and reallocates an object of one of its subclasses, initializes that new object, and hands it back to you.
Another example would be if you had a class that tried to memoize itself. Lets say you have an immutable class that gets initialized with a number. You could change your -init to re-use existing instances of the class. Here's an example (note: not thread-safe):
static NSDictionary *numberCache;
#interface MyNumber : NSObject
#property (readonly) int number;
- (id)initWithInt:(int)i;
#end
#implementation MyNumber
+ (void)initialize {
if (self == [MyNumber class]) {
numberCache = [[NSDictionary alloc] init];
}
}
- (id)initWithInt:(int)i {
// find ourself in the numberCache
NSValue *val = [numberCache objectForKey:#(i)];
if (val) {
// yep, we exist. Release the just-allocated object
[self release];
// and retain the memoized object and stuff it back in self
self = [[val nonretainedObjectValue] retain];
} else if ((self = [super init])) {
// nope, doesn't exist yet. Initialize ourself
_number = i;
// and stuff us into the cache
val = [NSValue valueWithNonretainedObject:self];
[numberCache setObject:val forKey:#(i)];
}
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc {
// remove us from the cache
[numberCache removeObjectForKey:#(_number)];
[super dealloc];
}
#end
#KevinBallard covered most of the points. The reason we need the self = is because init is not guaranteed to return the same object it is called on (it could return a different object or nil). I will answer your questions and expand on the memory management aspects:
I believe that, in the second section of code, self points to the
instance to which the message was sent that resulted in "self" being
encountered, i.e., the result of [SpinningView alloc].
Yes
So, when you call self = [super initWithFrame:frame] on the 4th line
of code, are you not reassigning the pointer value associated with
"spinner"?
Yes. Not spinner (spinner doesn't exist at this point anyway). You are re-assigning the pointer variableself inside the method.
I.e, are you not abandoning the memory you allocated in the first
line? Or does the compiler someone know just to copy memory values
instead of changing the pointer value? Or... what??
Yes. Under MRC, you are just re-assigning the pointer, and the compiler does not do anything except change the pointer value. Under ARC, it's more complicated, but at the end of the day, the compiler just does the same as under MRC in this case, i.e. just re-assigns the pointer.
It's not really "abandoning" the memory if you think about it. You see, by convention, init methods take ownership of ("consume") an already-retained object that they're called on (usually the return result of a call to alloc), and they return a retained object. But these two don't have to be the same object. So when your init method is called, its self is already retained, and the init method owns it, but then it calls [super init...], which calls the superclass's init method on self, so that method now takes ownership of the self which your init had ownership to. And in return, that superclass's init returns back to you a retained instance, which you assign to self. You did not "abandon" self because you gave it to the superclass's init method, which in turn became responsible for memory managing it (including releasing it if it wants to return something else).
As follow-up of sorts to Is returning nil from a [[class alloc] init] considered good practice?, there's a case that I haven't seen any discussed much: what to do with an init that fails some preconditions before it can call the next init?
Example, suppose in this initWithStuff: method being passed nil or in general having no value to pass to initWithValue: is an absolute failure and we definitely want to return nil.
- (id)initWithStuff:(Stuff *)inStuff {
if (!inStuff || ![inStuff hasValidValue])
{
// can't proceed to call initWithValue: because we have no value
// so do what?
return nil;
}
NSInteger value = [inStuff integerValue];
return [super initWithValue:value];
}
Perhaps a clearer example is if the designated initializer method we wrap takes an object pointer and throws an exception if its passed nil. We definitely need to short-circuit that init call that would cause an exception.
My guess: init by any means possible, and only then release self before returning nil. If necessary, call bare init or any other initializer that will work to finish putting self into a known state before releasing it.
// can't proceed to call super's initWithValue: because we have no value
// so do what? do this:
self = [super init]; // or initWithValue:0
[self release];
return nil;
And if there were no such initializer that will work without valid data, I guess one would need to construct some valid, dummy data. Or complain to its author and until then just return nil and live with the leak :^)
Also, how does ARC affect the situation?
My guess: still finish init by any means possible, then just return nil. You'd think setting self might be redundant, but in some cases it's not. In any case, it but it needs to be there to silence a compiler warning.
// can't proceed to call super's initWithValue: because we have no value
// so do what? do this:
self = [super init]; // finish init so ARC can release it having no strong references
return nil;
Are my guesses wrong in any way?
Ideally, if a precondition fails, you don't call [super init…]. You just release self (if not using ARC) and return nil:
- (id)initWithStuff:(Stuff *)stuff {
if (!stuff || ![stuff isValid]) {
[self release]; // if not using ARC
return nil;
}
if (self = [super init]) {
// initialization here
}
return self;
}
The release takes care of deallocating self under MRC. Under ARC, the compiler will insert the release for you.
However, there is a potential problem with this approach. When you release self (or when ARC releases it for you), the system will send the dealloc message to the object. And your dealloc method will call [super dealloc]. You could suppress the [super dealloc] under MRC, but you can't avoid it with ARC.
So the danger is that your superclass might assume that one of its instance variables has been initialized, and rely on that initialized value in its dealloc. For example, suppose this is the superclass:
#interface SomeSuperclass : NSObject
#end
#implementation SomeSuperclass {
CFMutableBagRef bag;
}
- (id)init {
if (self = [super init]) {
bag = CFBagCreateMutable(NULL, 0, &kCFTypeBagCallBacks);
}
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc {
CFRelease(bag);
}
#end
The problem here is that CFRelease requires its argument to not be nil. So this will crash during deallocation if you don't call [super init] in your subclass.
Given this problem, I have to change my initial recommendation. If you know that your superclass's dealloc doesn't have this sort of problem (because, for example, it checks pointers before dereferencing them or passing them to CFRelease), then you can safely not call [super init].
If you don't know that your superclass's dealloc is safe, then my recommendation is that you move your preconditions out of init and into a class factory method.
In other words, don't treat alloc/init as part of your class's public interface. Provide a class method for creating instances:
// The class factory method. Declare this in your header file. This is how you
// or any user of this class should create instances.
+ (id)myObjectWithStuff:(Stuff *)stuff {
if (!stuff || ![stuff isValid])
return nil;
// self here is the class object, so it's appropriate to send `alloc` to it.
// You don't want to hardcode the class name here because that would break
// subclassing.
return [[self alloc] initWithStuff:stuff];
}
// This is now considered a private method. You should not declare it in your
// header file, though in Objective-C you can't prevent the user from calling it
// if he's determined to.
- (id)initWithStuff:(Stuff *)stuff {
// Precondition was already checked in myObjectWithStuff:.
if (self = [super init]) {
// initialization here...
}
return self;
}
Class definition:
#import "MyClass.h"
#implementation MyClass
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
// Initialization code here.
}
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc
{
[super dealloc];
}
- (void)print
{
NSLog(#"Hello World");
}
#end
And main file:
MyClass * m = [[MyClass alloc]init];
[m print];
[m release];
[m print];
Result:
Hello World
Hello World
Why the 2nd method still invoked when object is released?
Releasing an object simply marks the memory it used as being available to be reused for other purposes. It doesn't overwrite it with zeroes or anything like that. In your example, you haven't created any new objects, so nothing has had a chance to reuse the memory formerly known as "m".
This why it's a common pattern to release an object and assign nil to the pointer, to prevent accidental re-use of an invalid object:
[m release]
m = nil;
That's because the memory for that object still is in place and hasn't been overwritten with garbage yet. Also, the method in question doesn't rely on any other (released) instance variable. In short: it's just pure chance that it worked.
Try setting the environment variable NSZombieEnabled and running that again to see that you really just had "luck".
Accessing freed memory is undefined behavior. When you're invoking undefined behavior, anything can happen. This falls under the heading of "anything," so it's a reasonable thing to have happen — so is accessing the wrong object or just crashing, which are also likely outcomes.
I am writing a framework and I have an object with a custom init method:
#implementation OSDatabase
#synthesize database;
// MEM
- (void)dealloc {
sqlite3_close(database);
[super dealloc];
}
// INIT
- (id)initWithDatabasePath:(NSString *)path error:(NSError **)error {
if (self = [super init]) {
if (!sqlite3_open_v2([path UTF8String], &database, SQLITE_OPEN_READWRITE | SQLITE_OPEN_CREATE, NULL)) {
error = [NSError errorWithDomain:#"OSDatabaseErrorDomain" code:1 userInfo:nil];
[self dealloc];
return nil;
}
}
return self;
}
#end
Is it safe to call dealloc inside of an init method if an error occoured? I'm not sure about this and memory management is one of the most important things in my life.
Thanks.
Is it safe to call dealloc inside of an init method if an error occoured?
No. send -release like you would everywhere else. Even in -init you can't guarantee that the current retain count is 1.
Why must you never ever send -dealloc except [super dealloc] in -dealloc? The reason is that you cannot ever guarantee that something else also has a reference to your object, even in your object's -init because the [super init] might choose to retain the object.
If the object returned by [super init] has a retain count of 1, sending -release will have the same effect as sending -dealloc. If it has a retain count of more than 1, something else thinks it owns the object and deallocing it would leave it with an invalid pointer, so -release is still the right thing to do.
Also, this:
while([self retainCount] != 0){[self release];}
would result in an infinite loop and is a terrible idea for a number of reasons. The retain counts of objects never go down to 0. -release looks something like this:
- (id)release
{
if (retainCount == 1)
{
[self dealloc];
}
else
{
retainCount--;
}
}
so the loop will decrement the retain count to 1 and then continually call dealloc forever or until the heap corruption it has caused leads to a seg fault.
Apart from never reaching zero, the retain may be UINT_MAX (for example in string or numeric literals) which colloquially means "this object must never be deallocated". If the retain count is UINT_MAX, -release won't decrement it.
Per docs you should never call dealloc directly - only [super dealloc] method in your custom dealloc.
I think calling release instead should do what expected (at least if you use init method only in standard alloc-init pattern).
As Vladimir stated you should never call dealloc directly. when retain count of an object reaches 0, Cocoa automatically calls dealloc.
Basically I have this scenario going on:
//in interface header
#property(nonatomic,retain)OtherClass *otherClass;
//implementation
- (id)initWithOtherClassInstance:(OtherClass*)otherClass
{
if (self != [super init])
return self;
self.otherClass = otherClass;
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc
{
//Do I need to release otherClass ?
[otherClass release];
[super dealloc];
}
I'm wondering whether I should release an instance variable on which not explicitly alloc, new or copy was called? The memory management guides say I shoud not, but what I'm worrying about is that self.otherClass = otherClass would retain the instance variable and thus cause a leak when I would decide to not release it in the dealloc method.
Moreover releasing the instance variable in the dealloc method does not generate an exception, which it would in case it was overreleased.
Does my reasoning here make any sense, and what is the best thing to do in a case like this ?
Yes you do need to release this, as other answers suggest. But I find that explicitly calling [foo release] on an ivar that you retained via property setter to be a little unbalanced. I prefer setting self.otherClass = nil; in these scenarios.
Of course under the hood it will do a release for you, but it just looks more balanced and clean.
You are doing this right, the rule you mentioned is the 'create' rule. You still need to match all your retains with releases as well.
Your init method is wrong. You need to assign the result of [super init] to self.
Other than that, assuming that self.otherClass is a retain property, what you have done is sort of OK. If you insist on using the property in -init you should assign the property to nil in dealloc, as Ben says, because then whether the property is assign, retain or copy, the right thing will happen.
However,
it is recommended that you do not use accessors in the -init and -dealloc methods. This is because subclasses may override them to do things you don't expect and KVO observers might get notified in dealloc. So you should probably just set and retain the ivar in init and release it in dealloc.
Note that
self.otherClass = otherClass
is the same as
[self setOtherClass:otherClass]
The default implementation on setOtherClass: looks like
- (void) setOtherClass:(OtherClass*)other
{
[other retain];
[otherClass release];
otherClass = other;
}
As you can see, it retains the object, so you have to release it somewhere.
If you don't like explicit release without explicit alloc, new or copy, then you can do the next in dealloc:
- (void) dealloc
{
[self setOtherClass:nil];
[super dealloc];
}