I'm developing an iOS5 App using ARC, and I started to get some random EXEC_BAD_ACCESS crashes that I cannot figure out.. By random I mean it is very unpredictable: sometimes it may take a long time to crash, sometimes short. and there is also no one specific button/tablecell/etc. that trigger the crash. Every user interaction can possibly crash the app, but you cannot repeat the crash.
I have tried to turn on NSZombie and also some malloc debugger tools. In Instruments the crash error reads: An Objective-C message was sent to a deallocated object (zombie) at address: 0x10bd1b40. And the last part of the reference count log looks like this:
475 CoursesFirstViewController Release 2 02:23.253.631 0 UIKit -[UINibDecoder finishDecoding]
476 CoursesFirstViewController Release 1 02:23.253.838 0 Foundation -[NSAutoreleasePool drain]
477 CoursesFirstViewController Zombie -1 02:35.752.420 0 Foundation objectHash
The 2, 1, -1 thing are the reference counts. I have no idea why it skips 0 and drop to -1, crashing the program (all entries but the last have continuous ref counts). Also I have no idea what objectHash is.
My app comprises of multiple functions, accessible as icons on my main screen. CoursesFirstViewController is one of the functions. Always, it is CoursesFirstViewController and objectHash that crash the app, even if I am at somewhere else. (This is the case for the log above: I went out of CoursesFirstViewController (thus returning to the main screen of my app) at 02:23, but after 12 sec, when I was in some other function, the app crashed) I only need to enter CourseFirstViewController, mess around with it for a bit, and then go elsewhere to continue using the app, and after a while it will just crash.
I'm really mad of this problem now. I have searched SO and Google for quite a while but cannot find a solution. Any help will be greatly greatly appreciated. Thanks!!
#robmayoff yea I already checked that but didn't see anything especially useful there. the last few calls are objectHash, hashProbe, [NSConcreteHashTable rehashAround], [NSConcreteHashTable removeItem] etc.
This is actually somewhat useful. This is telling us that a collection, probably an NSDictionary, but possibly an NSSet is being destroyed. From your earlier information it seems to be an autoreleased collection that is created during the nib instantiation process (so probably an ivar of CoursesFirstViewController). That's where I'd be looking anyway given the symptoms, but the crash seems to confirm it.
General recommendations are auditing any __bridge casts or unsafe_unretained properties.
Another hunch is that you've named a method in a way that violates Cocoa memory management. The most likely misnaming would be that you have a property that starts with new or copy. This would definitely be an issue if you have ARC code call misnamed non-ARC code.
I suspect one of your properties is marked "weak" when it should be "strong" and is going out of scope and getting released before you access it. ARC can't save you in that case and you will get the above random crash behavior.
If you don't have any luck finding it I would resort to doing a global search for "weak" properties on your project and double-check each one to make sure it isn't something you expect to hang around. It's tedious but honestly doesn't take that long to do and sometimes turns up more than the one bug.
I gather from your Instruments output that the zombie object is of type CoursesFirstViewController. We often use a view controller as the delegate for some other object, and most objects that have delegates do not retain their delegates.
I am assuming that you aren't using any unsafe_unretained properties or variables, or any retain-type properties. So I assume that none of your objects is keeping a dangling reference to the CoursesFirstViewController zombie.
Since the system libraries have to work with non-ARC code, they do not use ARC's weak references. So if some system object has a CoursesFirstViewController as its delegate, and the CoursesFirstViewController is destroyed but the system object is not, then the system object is left with a dangling reference to the destroyed object.
So, check whether you're using the CoursesFirstViewController as the delegate for any system objects. If so, are you sure those objects don't outlive the CoursesFirstViewController?
Related
I have tried using the leaks tool, and "analyze" etc to find the leak, but it can't find it. Using allocations I can determine the objects which are not being released.
I have noticed (by adding debugging statements in the dealloc method), that dealloc is not called for these objects.
How can I determine which objects are holding references to these objects and preventing them from being released?
If you need to see where retains, releases and autoreleases occur for an object use instruments:
Run in instruments, in Allocations set "Record reference counts" on on (you have to stop recording to set the option). Cause the picker to run, stop recording, search for there ivar (datePickerView), drill down and you will be able to see where all retains, releases and autoreleases occurred.
The analyze tool was unable to detect the problem. Using the allocations tool to capture all the reference counts was a start, but there were so many classes I didn't recognize, or access directly, I was not able to track down the problem using this method. Instead, I made a list of the classes that I was directly responsible for, and investigated each of them line by line till I found the problems. The cause was that I used some third party libraries which didn't decrement the retain count of some of my objects as expected. I guess in this case, following better software engineering principles / design patterns, and having thorough code reviews may have caught the problem earlier.
I would start by building and analyzing the project ( Shift Command B in the IDE ).
You can overload retain/release/autorelease implementations in problematic classes (if it's an SDK class, it's possible to use a category) and set breakpoint there. Your breakpoint will be hit each time something retains your object.
How would you write a unit test—using OCUnit, for instance—to ensure that objects are being released/retained properly in Cocoa/Objective-C?
A naïve way to do this would be to check the value of retainCount, but of course you should never use retainCount. Can you simply check whether an object's reference is assigned a value of nil to indicate that it has been released? Also, what guarantees do you have about the timing at which objects are actually deallocated?
I'm hoping for a concise solution of only a few lines of code, as I will probably use this extensively. There may actually be two answers: one that uses the autorelease pool, and another that does not.
To clarify, I'm not looking for a way to comprehensively test every object that I create. It's impossible to unit test any behavior comprehensively, let alone memory management. At the very least, though, it would be nice to check the behavior of released objects for regression testing (and ensure that the same memory-related bug doesn't happen twice).
About the Answers
I accepted BJ Homer's answer because I found it to be the easiest, most concise way of accomplishing what I had in mind, given the caveat that the weak pointers provided with Automatic Reference Counting aren't available in production versions of XCode (prior to 4.2?) as of July 23rd, 2011. I was also impressed to learn that
ARC can be enabled on a per-file basis; it does not require that your
entire project use it. You could compile your unit tests with ARC and
leave your main project on manual retain-release, and this test would
still work.
That being said, for a far more detailed exploration of the potential issues involved with unit testing memory management in Objective-C, I highly recommend Peter Hosey's in-depth response.
Can you simply check whether an object's reference is assigned a value of nil to indicate that it has been released?
No, because sending a release message to an object and assigning nil to a variable are two different and unrelated things.
The closest you can get is that assigning anything to a strong/retaining or copying property, which translates to an accessor message, causes the previous value of the property to be released (which is done by the setter). Even so, watching the value of the property—using KVO, say—does not mean you will know when the object is released; most especially, when the owning object is deallocated, you will not get a notification when it sends release directly to the owned object. You will also get a warning message in your console (because the owning object died while you were observing it), and you do not want noisy warning messages from a unit test. Plus, you would have to specifically observe every property of every object to pull this off—miss one, and you may be missing a bug.
A release message to an object has no effect on any variables that point to that object. Neither does deallocation.
This changes slightly under ARC: Weak-referencing variables will be automatically assigned nil when the referenced object goes away. That doesn't help you much, though, because strongly-referencing variables, by definition, will not: If there's a strong reference to the object, the object won't (well, shouldn't) go away, because the strong reference will (should) keep it alive. An object dying before it should is one of the problems you're looking for, not something you'll want to use as a tool.
You could theoretically create a weak reference to every object you create, but you would have to refer to every object specifically, creating a variable for it manually in your code. As you can imagine, a tremendous pain and certain to miss objects.
Also, what guarantees do you have about the timing at which objects are actually released?
An object is released by sending it a release message, so the object is released when it receives that message.
Perhaps you meant “deallocated”. Releasing merely brings it closer to that point; an object can be released many times and still have a long life ahead of it if each release merely balanced out a previous retain.
An object is deallocated when it is released for the last time. This happens immediately. The infamous retainCount doesn't even go down to 0, as many a clever person who tried to write while ([obj retainCount] > 0) [obj release]; has found out.
There may actually be two answers: one that uses the autorelease pool, and another that does not.
A solution that uses the autorelease pool only works for objects that are autoreleased; by definition, objects not autoreleased do not go into the pool. It is entirely valid, and occasionally desirable, to never autorelease certain objects (particularly those you create many thousands of). Moreover, you can't look into the pool to see what's in it and what's not, or attempt to poke each object to see if it's dead.
How would you write a unit test—using OCUnit, for instance—to ensure that objects are being released/retained properly in Cocoa/Objective-C?
The best you could do is to set NSZombieEnabled to YES in setUp and restore its previous value in tearDown. This will catch over-releases/under-retains, but not leaks of any kind.
Even if you could write a unit test that thoroughly tests memory management, it would still be imperfect because it can only test the testable code—model objects and maybe certain controllers. You could still have leaks and crashes in your application caused by view code, nib-borne references and certain options (“Release When Closed” comes to mind), and so on.
There's no out-of-application test you can write that will ensure that your application is memory-bug-free.
That said, a test like you're imagining, if it were self-contained and automatic, would be pretty cool, even if it couldn't test everything. So I hope that I'm wrong and there is a way.
If you can use the newly-introduced Automatic Reference Counting (not yet available in production versions of Xcode, but documented here), then you could use weak pointers to test whether anything was over-retained.
- (void)testMemory {
__weak id testingPointer = nil;
id someObject = // some object with a 'foo' property
#autoreleasepool {
// Point the weak pointer to the thing we expect to be dealloc'd
// when we're done.
id theFoo = [someObject theFoo];
testingPointer = theFoo;
[someObject setTheFoo:somethingElse];
// At this point, we still have a reference to 'theFoo',
// so 'testingPointer' is still valid. We need to nil it out.
STAssertNotNil(testingPointer, #"This will never happen, since we're still holding it.")
theFoo = nil;
}
// Now the last strong reference to 'theFoo' should be gone, so 'testingPointer' will revert to nil
STAssertNil(testingPointer, #"Something didn't release %# when it should have", testingPointer);
}
Note that this works under ARC because of this change to the language semantics:
A retainable object pointer is either a null pointer or a pointer to a valid object.
Thus, the act of setting a pointer to nil is guaranteed to release the object it points to, and there's no way (under ARC) to release an object without removing a pointer to it.
One thing to note is that ARC can be enabled on a per-file basis; it does not require that your entire project use it. You could compile your unit tests with ARC and leave your main project on manual retain-release, and this test would still work.
The above does not detect over-releasing, but that's fairly easy to catch with NSZombieEnabled anyway.
If ARC is simply not an option, you may be able to do something similar with Mike Ash's MAZeroingWeakRef. I haven't used it much, but it seems to provide similar functionality to __weak pointers in a backwards-compatible way.
this is possibly not what you're looking for, but as a thought experiment I wondered if this might do something close to what you want: what if you created a mechanism to track the retain/release behavior for particular objects you wanted to test. Work it something like this:
create an override of NSObject dealloc
create a CFMutableSetRef and set up a custom retain/release functions to do nothing
make a unit test routine like registerForRRTracking: (id) object
make a unit test routine like clearRRTrackingReportingLeaks: (BOOL) report that will report any object in the set at that point in time.
call [tracker clearRRTrackignReportingLeaks: NO]; at the start of your unit test
call the register method in your unit test for every object you want to track and it'll be removed automatically on dealloc.
At the end of your test call the [tracker clearRRTrackingReportingLeaks: YES]; and it'll list all the objects that were not disposed of properly.
you could override NSObject alloc as well and just track everything but I imagine your set would get overly large (!!!).
Even better would be to put the CFMutableSetRef in a separate process and thus not have it impact your program runtime memory footprint overly much. Adds the complexity and runtime hit of inter-process communication though. Could use a private heap ( or zone - do those still exist?) to isolate it to a lesser degree.
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.
I'm thinking of writing an app for the iphone. But I'm confused in regards to the objective-c language. Am I correct in saying that I have to do my own memory management? Is Objective-C a managed language such as C# and/or Java?
Thank you!
"Managed" is a marketing term that has no technical meaning. Objective C for the iPhone is not garbage collected, but uses retain counting memory management. So in some sense, you have to do your own memory management, but it's limited to knowing the Cocoa retain counting methodology.
Edit: My comments on "managed" refer to a previous post version. The comment is left here because I'm tired of seeing the word.
There is no garbage collection feature. However, any object you copy, retain, alloc etc. has its retain count bumped up by one, and you are responsible for calling a releaseor an autorelease - you own an instance of that object. If you don't call [<YOUROBJECT> release]; or [<YOUROBJECT> autorelease];, the object remains in the iPhone's/iPod Touch's/iPad's memory, but the pointer no longer remains, and a memory leak occurs, as that bit of memory can no longer be accessed. Autoreleasing adds the object to the autorelease pool, and means that it will become released at some point in the future. Always use a standard release where possible, as autorelease means that it will still stay in the device's memory for a while, you can never be sure when it will be released, and it is a slightly more demanding method to call.
Never call dealloc on an object - releasing or autoreleasing is sufficient, and if required, the object will automatically be dealloced.
Make sure you never release objects you do not own, and if you do release objects, you release them after you no longer have any use of them - otherwise, you may try to access that object, and the device cannot find the object, and the situation results in your app crashing due to an EXEC_BAC_ACCESS error - to find out the root of the problem, open Instruments, add the Object Allocation instrument and enable NSZombie detection in its preferences (or add the Zombies instrument (only available in iPhone SDK 3.2+)). You can then view the entire history of the object which causes the problem, and jump to the exact line of code that caused the problem.
You can read more here.
Hope this helped
As others have pointed out Objective-C has no garbage collector on the iPhone, but it does have one for Mac OSX. Here is an article describing this in more detail: http://vasudevkamath.blogspot.com/2010/01/objective-c-my-opinions.html
You have to do your own memory management with Objective-C on the iPhone.
The answer isn't specific to Objective-C. If you're doing iPhone development, no...there is no garbage collector. If you're developing for Mac OSX, however, there is garbage collection.
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.