I need to know if I do it correctly. The application is running OK but I'm not sure I get the lifecycle correctly (leak ?).
Note: Instrument see no leak.
The code of a method aaa: of some class A:
- (void) aaa {
NSString *path = ...something...;
NSBlockOperation* theOp = [NSBlockOperation blockOperationWithBlock: ^{
// using path
[self somethingElseWith:path];
}];
[self.aQueue addOperation:theOp];
}
So I create a block to put on aQueue (NSOperationQueue*). The goal is to offload from the main thread the long running somethingElseWith: method, so that the GUI continue to be responsive.
Inside the block I reference the local var "path" that will be out of scope at the end of the aaa: method.
If I read the doc correctly, the block will do a retain on 'path'. But is ARC inserting a release at the end of this block implicitly ? Would be logical and nice.
Or should I declare 'path' as __block and assign it to nil at the end of my block ? (manual...)
Not sure I understand how to use __weak in this context.
The path variable is fine. You may however need to avoid a retain cycle by using a weak reference to self. If aQueue is a strong reference there may be a retain cycle causing self never to be released.
Solution:
- (void) aaa {
NSString *path = ...something...;
__weak id self_ = self;
NSBlockOperation* theOp = [NSBlockOperation blockOperationWithBlock: ^{
// using path
[self_ somethingElseWith:path];
}];
[self.aQueue addOperation:theOp];
}
Make sure the operation does not get called after the class should no longer exist.
The block will automatically handle memory management for any locals from the enclosing scope. You don't have to worry about retain/release pairs in this case. Note, though that path will be const within the block's scope. If you need pathto be mutable within the block, use the __block attribute.
The different ways a block handles variables is described in detail here: Blocks and Variables
Related
I've read over this thread: What does the "__block" keyword mean? which discusses what __block is used for but I'm confused about one of the answers. It says __block is used to avoid retain cycles, but the comments underneath it leave me unsure.
I'm using it something like this:
self.someProperty = x; //where x is some object (id)
__block __weak VP_User *this = self;
//begin a callback-style block
this.someProperty = nil;
Do I need to use both __block and __weak? Any glaring problems with this way this looks?
__block is a storage qualifier. It specifies that the variable should directly be captured by the block as opposed to copying it. This is useful in case you need to modify the original variable, as in the following example
__block NSString *aString = #"Hey!";
void(^aBlock)() = ^{ aString = #"Hello!" }; // without __block you couldn't modify aString
NSLog(#"%#", aString); // Hey!
aBlock();
NSLog(#"%#", aString); // Hello!
In ARC this causes the variable to be automatically retained, so that it can be safely referenced within the block implementation. In the previous example, then, aString is sent a retain message when captured in the block context.
Note that this isn't true in MRC (Manual Reference Counting), where the variable is referenced without being retained.
Marking it as __weak causes the variable not to be retained, so the block directly refers to it but without retaining it. This is potentially dangerous since in case the block lives longer than the variable, since it will be referring to garbage memory (and likely to crash).
Here's the relevant paragraph from the clang doc:
In the Objective-C and Objective-C++ languages, we allow the __weak specifier for __block variables of object type. [...] This qualifier causes these variables to be kept without retain messages being sent. This knowingly leads to dangling pointers if the Block (or a copy) outlives the lifetime of this object.
Finally the claim that __block can be used to avoid strong reference cycles (aka retain cycles) is plain wrong in an ARC context. Due to the fact that in ARC __block causes the variable to be strongly referenced, it's actually more likely to cause them.
For instance in MRC this code breaks a retain cycle
__block typeof(self) blockSelf = self; //this would retain self in ARC!
[self methodThatTakesABlock:^ {
[blockSelf doSomething];
}];
whereas to achieve the same result in ARC, you normally do
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
[self methodThatTakesABlock:^ {
[weakSelf doSomething];
}];
You should use __block if you want to change variable value in block.
e.g:
__block BOOL result = NO;
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
...
result = YES;
...
});
You should use __weak if you want to avoid retain cycles.
e.g.:
__weak typeof(self) wself = self;
self.foobarCompletion = ^{
...
wself.foo = YES;
...
};
You can combine them if there is a need.
I've seen several other questions of the same form, but I either a) can't understand the provided answers, or b) don't see how those situations are similar to mine.
I'm writing a Category on UIView to recursively evaluate all the subviews of a UIView and return an Array of subviews passing a test. I've noted where my compiler warning occurs:
-(NSArray*)subviewsPassingTest:(BOOL(^)(UIView *view, BOOL *stop))test {
__block BOOL *stop = NO;
NSArray*(^__block evaluateAndRecurse)(UIView*);
evaluateAndRecurse = ^NSArray*(UIView *view) {
NSMutableArray *myPassedChildren = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
for (UIView *subview in [view subviews]) {
BOOL passes = test(subview, stop);
if (passes) [myPassedChildren addObject:subview];
if (stop) return myPassedChildren;
[myPassedChildren addObjectsFromArray:evaluateAndRecurse(subview)];
// ^^^^ Compiler warning here ^^^^^
// "Capturing 'evaluateAndRecurse' strongly in this block
// is likely to lead to a retrain cycle"
}
return myPassedChildren;
};
return evaluateAndRecurse(self);
}
Also, I get a bad_access failure when I don't include the __block modifier in my block's declaration (^__block evaluateAndRecurse). If someone could explain why that is, that would be very helpful too. Thanks!
The problem here is that your block evaluteAndRecurse() captures itself, which means that, if it's ever to be copied (I don't believe it will in your case, but in slightly less-trivial cases it may), then it will retain itself and therefore live forever, as there is nothing to break the retain cycle.
Edit: Ramy Al Zuhouri made a good point, using __unsafe_unretained on the only reference to the block is dangerous. As long as the block remains on the stack, this will work, but if the block needs to be copied (e.g. it needs to escape to a parent scope), then the __unsafe_unretained will cause it to be deallocated. The following paragraph has been updated with the recommended approach:
What you probably want to do here is use a separate variable marked with __unsafe_unretained that also contains the block, and capture that separate variable. This will prevent it from retaining itself. You could use __weak, but since you know that the block must be alive if it's being called, there's no need to bother with the (very slight) overhead of a weak reference. This will make your code look like
NSArray*(^__block __unsafe_unretained capturedEvaluteAndRecurse)(UIView*);
NSArray*(^evaluateAndRecurse)(UIView*) = ^NSArray*(UIView *view) {
...
[myPassedChildren addObjectsFromArray:capturedEvaluateAndRecurse(subview)];
};
capturedEvaluateAndRecurse = evaluteAndRecurse;
Alternatively, you could capture a pointer to the block, which will have the same effect but allow you to grab the pointer before the block instantiation instead of after. This is a personal preference. It also allows you to omit the __block:
NSArray*(^evaluateAndRecurse)(UIView*);
NSArray*(^*evaluteAndRecursePtr)(UIView*) = &evaluateAndRecurse;
evaluateAndRecurse = ^NSArray*(UIView*) {
...
[myPassedChildren addObjectsFromArray:(*evaluateAndRecursePtr)(subview)];
};
As for needing the __block, that's a separate issue. If you don't have __block, then the block instance will actually capture the previous value of the variable. Remember, when a block is created, any captured variables that aren't marked with __block are actually stored as a const copy of their state at the point where the block is instantiated. And since the block is created before it's assigned to the variable, that means it's capturing the state of the capturedEvaluteAndRecurse variable before the assignment, which is going to be nil (under ARC; otherwise, it would be garbage memory).
In essence, you can think of a given block instance as actually being an instance of a hidden class that has an ivar for each captured variable. So with your code, the compiler would basically treat it as something like:
// Note: this isn't an accurate portrayal of what actually happens
PrivateBlockSubclass *block = ^NSArray*(UIView *view){ ... };
block->stop = stop;
block->evaluteAndRecurse = evaluateAndRecurse;
evaluteAndRecurse = block;
Hopefully this makes it clear why it captures the previous value of evaluateAndRecurse instead of the current value.
I've done something similar, but in a different way to cut down on time allocating new arrays, and haven't had any problems. You could try adapting your method to look something like this:
- (void)addSubviewsOfKindOfClass:(id)classObject toArray:(NSMutableArray *)array {
if ([self isKindOfClass:classObject]) {
[array addObject:self];
}
NSArray *subviews = [self subviews];
for (NSView *view in subviews) {
[view addSubviewsOfKindOfClass:classObject toArray:array];
}
}
From the Transitioning to ARC Release Notes
Use Lifetime Qualifiers to Avoid Strong Reference Cycles
You can use lifetime qualifiers to avoid strong reference cycles. For
example, typically if you have a graph of objects arranged in a
parent-child hierarchy and parents need to refer to their children and
vice versa, then you make the parent-to-child relationship strong and
the child-to-parent relationship weak. Other situations may be more
subtle, particularly when they involve block objects.
In manual reference counting mode, __block id x; has the effect of not
retaining x. In ARC mode, __block id x; defaults to retaining x (just
like all other values). To get the manual reference counting mode
behavior under ARC, you could use __unsafe_unretained __block id x;.
As the name __unsafe_unretained implies, however, having a
non-retained variable is dangerous (because it can dangle) and is
therefore discouraged. Two better options are to either use __weak (if
you don’t need to support iOS 4 or OS X v10.6), or set the __block
value to nil to break the retain cycle.
Okay, so what's different about __block variable?
Why set to nil here? Is __block variable retained twice? Who hold all the reference? The block? The heap? The stack? The thread? The what?
The following code fragment illustrates this issue using a pattern that is sometimes used in manual reference counting.
MyViewController *myController = [[MyViewController alloc] init…];
// ...
myController.completionHandler = ^(NSInteger result) {
[myController dismissViewControllerAnimated:YES completion:nil];
};
[self presentViewController:myController animated:YES completion:^{
[myController release];
}];
As described, instead, you can use a __block qualifier and set the myController variable to nil in the completion handler:
MyViewController * __block myController = [[MyViewController alloc] init…]; //Why use __block. my controller is not changed at all
// ...
myController.completionHandler = ^(NSInteger result) {
[myController dismissViewControllerAnimated:YES completion:nil];
myController = nil; //Why set to nil here? Is __block variable retained twice? Who hold all the reference? The block? The heap? The stack? The thread? The what?
};
Also why myController is not set to nil by compiler. Why do we have to do so? It seems that the compiler sort of know when myController will no longer be used again namely when the block expire.
When you have code of this form:
object.block = ^{
// reference object from inside the block
[object someMethodOrProperty];
};
object will retain or copy the block you give to it. But the block itself will also retain object because it is strongly referenced from within the block. This is a retain cycle. Even after the block has finished executing, the reference cycle still exists and neither the object nor the block can be deallocated. Remember that a block can be called multiple times, so it cannot just forget all the variables it references after it has finished executing once.
To break this cycle, you can define object to be a __block variable, which allows you to change its value from inside the block, e.g. changing it to nil to break the cycle:
__block id object = ...;
object.block = ^{
// reference object from inside the block
[object someMethodOrProperty];
object = nil;
// At this point, the block no longer retains object, so the cycle is broken
};
When we assign object to nil at the end of the block, the block will no longer retain object and the retain cycle is broken. This allows both objects to be deallocated.
One concrete example of this is with with NSOperation's completionBlock property. If you use the completionBlock to access an operation's result, you need to break the retain cycle that is created:
__block NSOperation *op = [self operationForProcessingSomeData];
op.completionBlock = ^{
// since we strongly reference op here, a retain cycle is created
[self operationFinishedWithData:op.processedData];
// break the retain cycle!
op = nil;
}
As the documentation describes, there are a number of other techniques you can also use to break these retain cycles. For example, you will need to use a different technique in non-ARC code than you would in ARC code.
I prefer this solution
typeof(self) __weak weakSelf = self;
self.rotationBlock = ^{
typeof (weakSelf) __strong self = weakSelf;
[self yourCodeThatReferenceSelf];
};
What happens is that the block will capture self as a weak reference and there will be no retain cycle. self inside the block is then redefined as __strong self = weakSelf before your code runs. This prevents self from being released while your block runs.
self is merely a captured variable inside a block and doesn't reference the block itself, so how does a block reference itself without having an explicit captured variable for that purpose?
__block void(^strawberryFields)();
strawberryFields = [^{ strawberryFields(); } copy];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT,0),
strawberryFields);
you use the __block because the block will make a copy of the value of strawberryFields when the block is created which will be before the assignment.
you also must copy the block prior to any other copy operation or else you'll end up with a block that references the on-stack original version.
note that the above code leaks the block. Somewhere, there needs to be a release of that block to balance the copy.
I found this pattern to work and stable for ARC (automatic reference counting), both in Debug and Release builds.
-(void) someMethod
{
// declare a __block variable to use inside the block itself for its recursive phase.
void __block (^myBlock_recurse)();
// define the block
void (^myBlock)() = ^{
// ... do stuff ...
myBlock_recurse(); // looks like calling another block, but not really.
};
// kickstart the block
myBlock_recurse = myBlock; // initialize the alias
myBlock(); // starts the block
}
Initially I tried just putting a __block modifier to myBlock and use that variable directly to recurse within the block's implementation. That works on the ARC Debug build but breaks with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS on the Release build. On the other hand removing the __block modifier raises a "variable not defined when captured by block" warning (and I was reluctant to run it and test).
I have never tried this before and not 100% sure it's useful, if valid, but for example:
typedef void (^BasicBlock)(void);
__block BasicBlock testBlock;
testBlock = ^{NSLog(#"Testing %p", &testBlock);};
testBlock();
You probably have declare the variable with __block to prevent self-retain cycle.
The block needs some way to nil out its own reference. Typically it is done by storing the block in a property of the class.
Sometimes you can prefer to not use a property. Here is how you do it without a property:
__weak id weakSelf = self;
__block id block = ^{
if(weakSelf) {
// .. do whatever
dispatch_after(dispatch_time(DISPATCH_TIME_NOW, 5 * NSEC_PER_SEC), dispatch_get_main_queue(), block);
}
else {
block = nil;
}
};
dispatch_after(dispatch_time(DISPATCH_TIME_NOW, 5 * NSEC_PER_SEC), dispatch_get_main_queue(), block);
The key thing to keep in mind is that all code paths must lead to a block = nil. We do that here by calling the block every 5 seconds until weakSelf turns nil.
Note that in ARC, it's a little different -- __block object pointer variables are by default retained in ARC, unlike in MRC. Thus, it will cause a retain cycle. It is necessary for the block to capture a weak reference to itself (using __weak) in order to not have a retain cycle.
However, we still need a strong reference to the block somewhere. If there are no strong references, the block (which is on the heap since it's copied) will be deallocated. Thus, we need two variables, one strong and one weak, and inside the block use the weak one to reference itself:
__block __weak void(^weakBlock)();
void(^myBlock)();
weakBlock = myBlock = [^{ weakBlock(); } copy];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT,0),
myBlock);
I'd like to recursively call a block from within itself. In an obj-c object, we get to use "self", is there something like this to refer to a block instance from inside itself?
Fun story! Blocks actually are Objective-C objects. That said, there is no exposed API to get the self pointer of blocks.
However, if you declare blocks before using them, you can use them recursively. In a non-garbage-collected environment, you would do something like this:
__weak __block int (^block_self)(int);
int (^fibonacci)(int) = [^(int n) {
if (n < 2) { return 1; }
return block_self(n - 1) + block_self(n - 2);
} copy];
block_self = fibonacci;
It is necessary to apply the __block modifier to block_self, because otherwise, the block_self reference inside fibonacci would refer to it before it is assigned (crashing your program on the first recursive call). The __weak is to ensure that the block doesn't capture a strong reference to itself, which would cause a memory leak.
The following recursive block code will compile and run using ARC, GC, or manual memory management, without crashing, leaking, or issuing warnings (analyzer or regular):
typedef void (^CountdownBlock)(int currentValue);
- (CountdownBlock) makeRecursiveBlock
{
CountdownBlock aBlock;
__block __unsafe_unretained CountdownBlock aBlock_recursive;
aBlock_recursive = aBlock = [^(int currentValue)
{
if(currentValue >= 0)
{
NSLog(#"Current value = %d", currentValue);
aBlock_recursive(currentValue-1);
}
} copy];
#if !__has_feature(objc_arc)
[aBlock autorelease];
#endif
return aBlock;
}
- (void) callRecursiveBlock
{
CountdownBlock aBlock = [self makeRecursiveBlock];
// You don't need to dispatch; I'm doing this to demonstrate
// calling from beyond the current autorelease pool.
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^
{
aBlock(10);
});
}
Important considerations:
You must copy the block onto the heap manually or else it will try to access a nonexistent stack when you call it from another context (ARC usually does this for you, but not in all cases. Better to play it safe).
You need TWO references: One to hold the strong reference to the block, and one to hold a weak reference for the recursive block to call (technically, this is only needed for ARC).
You must use the __block qualifier so that the block doesn't capture the as-yet unassigned value of the block reference.
If you're doing manual memory management, you'll need to autorelease the copied block yourself.
You have to declare the block variable as __block:
typedef void (^MyBlock)(id);
__block MyBlock block = ^(id param) {
NSLog(#"%#", param);
block(param);
};
There is no self for blocks (yet). You can build one like this (assuming ARC):
__block void (__weak ^blockSelf)(void);
void (^block)(void) = [^{
// Use blockSelf here
} copy];
blockSelf = block;
// Use block here
The __block is needed so we can set blockSelf to the block after creating the block. The __weak is needed because otherwise the block would hold a strong reference to itself, which would cause a strong reference cycle and therefore a memory leak. The copy is needed to make sure that the block is copied to the heap. That may be unnecessary with newer compiler versions, but it won't do any harm.