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.
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).
thanks for viewing this post, it'd be great if you guys can help me out. I've been doing some objective-c and learned about the objective-c way of memory management, like making sure to call release whenever I own the object, when to call autorelease, etc. I also do not want to use ARC or the newly introduced GC because I like to manage my own memory, I plan to advance later on into iOS development, and I know it's a good practice to manage my own memory. But there's still one small detail that I seem to have hit a brick wall in. It has to do with sending objects the -retain message. I learned that sending the -retain message increments the reference count by 1. But would this be an appropriate time to send -retain? :
- (void) setName : (NSString* ) theName
{
// name is an instance variable of type NSString
[theName retain]; // Must release this
name = [theName copy]; // Must release this in dealloc
[theName release]; // decrement the reference count because of retain
}
Should I call retain here so that I own the argument temporarily and ensure it doesnt'
get released somehow before I get to use it?
Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!
No. You the object supplied as an argument to the method will generally be around until your method returns. You don't need the retain messages there. You copy the string here to keep it around after the method returns.
This is documented in Apple's Documentation on this page in the "Avoid Causing Deallocation of Objects You’re Using" Section. Specifically:
Cocoa’s ownership policy specifies that received objects should
typically remain valid throughout the scope of the calling method. It
should also be possible to return a received object from the current
scope without fear of it being released. It should not matter to your
application that the getter method of an object returns a cached
instance variable or a computed value. What matters is that the object
remains valid for the time you need it.
As an aside you really should consider using ARC. Its not good practise to manage your own memory. No matter how good one can be at managing their own memory the LLVM compiler is still better. Managing your own memory will lead to hard to troubleshoot issues caused only by yourself. It is an extra level of cognitive load that you really don't have to deal with and, when you finally let manual memory management go, you will breathe a sigh of relief at all the mental overhead you didn't even know was there.
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.
Or, Why I Didn't Use retainCount On My Summer Vacation
This post is intended to solicit detailed write-ups about the whys and wherefores of that infamous method, retainCount, in order to consolidate the relevant information floating around SO.*
The basics: What are the official reasons to not use retainCount? Is there ever any situation at all when it might be useful? What should be done instead?** Feel free to editorialize.
Historical/explanatory: Why does Apple provide this method in the NSObject protocol if it's not intended to be used? Does Apple's code rely on retainCount for some purpose? If so, why isn't it hidden away somewhere?
For deeper understanding: What are the reasons that an object may have a different retain count than would be assumed from user code? Can you give any examples*** of standard procedures that framework code might use which cause such a difference? Are there any known cases where the retain count is always different than what a new user might expect?
Anything else you think is worth metioning about retainCount?
*
Coders who are new to Objective-C and Cocoa often grapple with, or at least misunderstand, the reference-counting scheme. Tutorial explanations may mention retain counts, which (according to these explanations) go up by one when you call retain, alloc, copy, etc., and down by one when you call release (and at some point in the future when you call autorelease).
A budding Cocoa hacker, Kris, could thus quite easily get the idea that checking an object's retain count would be useful in resolving some memory issues, and, lo and behold, there's a method available on every object called retainCount! Kris calls retainCount on a couple of objects, and this one is too high, and that one's too low, and what the heck is going on?! So Kris makes a post on SO, "What's wrong with my memory management?" and then a swarm of <bold>, <large> letters descend saying "Don't do that! You can't rely on the results.", which is well and good, but our intrepid coder may want a deeper explanation.
I'm hoping that this will turn into an FAQ, a page of good informational essays/lectures from any of our experts who are inclined to write one, that new Cocoa-heads can be pointed to when they wonder about retainCount.
** I don't want to make this too broad, but specific tips from experience or the docs on verifying/debugging retain and release pairings may be appropriate here.
***In dummy code; obviously the general public don't have access to Apple's actual code.
The basics: What are the official reasons to not use retainCount?
Autorelease management is the most obvious -- you have no way to be sure how many of the references represented by the retainCount are in a local or external (on a secondary thread, or in another thread's local pool) autorelease pool.
Also, some people have trouble with leaks, and at a higher level reference counting and how autorelease pools work at fundamental levels. They will write a program without (much) regard to proper reference counting, or without learning ref counting properly. This makes their program very difficult to debug, test, and improve -- it's also a very time consuming rectification.
The reason for discouraging its use (at the client level) is twofold:
The value may vary for so many reasons. Threading alone is reason enough to never trust it.
You still have to implement correct reference counting. retainCount will never save you from imbalanced reference counting.
Is there ever any situation at all when it might be useful?
You could in fact use it in a meaningful way if you wrote your own allocators or reference counting scheme, or if your object lived on one thread and you had access to any and all autorelease pools it could exist in. This also implies you would not share it with any external APIs. The easy way to simulate this is to create a program with one thread, zero autorelease pools, and do your reference counting the 'normal' way. It's unlikely that you'll ever need to solve this problem/write this program for anything other than "academic" reasons.
As a debugging aid: you could use it to verify that the retain count is not unusually high. If you take this approach, be mindful of the implementation variances (some are cited in this post), and don't rely on it. Don't even commit the tests to your SCM repository.
This may be a useful diagnostic in extremely rare circumstances. It can be used to detect:
Over-retaining: An allocation with a positive imbalance in retain count would not show up as a leak if the allocation is reachable by your program.
An object which is referenced by many other objects: One illustration of this problem is a (mutable) shared resource or collection which operates in a multithreaded context - frequent access or changes to this resource/collection can introduce a significant bottleneck in your program's execution.
Autorelease levels: Autoreleasing, autorelease pools, and retain/autorelease cycles all come with a cost. If you need to minimize or reduce memory use and/or growth, you could use this approach to detect excessive cases.
From commentary with Bavarious (below): a high value may also indicate an invalidated allocation (dealloc'd instance). This is completely an implementation detail, and again, not usable in production code. Messaging this allocation would result in a error when zombies are enabled.
What should be done instead?
If you're not responsible for returning the memory at self (that is, you did not write an allocator), leave it alone - it is useless.
You have to learn proper reference counting.
For a better understanding of release and autorelease usage, set up some breakpoints and understand how they are used, in what cases, etc. You'll still have to learn to use reference counting correctly, but this can aid your understanding of why it's useless.
Even simpler: use Instruments to track allocs and ref counts, then analyze the ref counting and callstacks of several objects in an active program.
Historical/explanatory: Why does Apple provide this method in the NSObject protocol if it's not intended to be used? Does Apple's code rely on retainCount for some purpose? If so, why isn't it hidden away somewhere?
We can assume that it is public for two primary reasons:
Reference counting proper in managed environments. It's fine for the allocators to use retainCount -- really. It's a very simple concept. When -[NSObject release] is called, the ref counter (unless overridden) may be called, and the object can be deallocated if retainCount is 0 (after calling dealloc). This is all fine at the allocator level. Allocators and zones are (largely) abstracted so... this makes the result meaningless for ordinary clients. See commentary with bbum (below) for details on why retainCount cannot be equal to 0 at the client level, object deallocation, deallocation sequences, and more.
To make it available to subclassers who want a custom behavior, and because the other reference counting methods are public. It may be handy in a few cases, but it's typically used for the wrong reasons (e.g. immortal singletons). If you need your own reference counting scheme, then this family may be worth overriding.
For deeper understanding: What are the reasons that an object may have a different retain count than would be assumed from user code? Can you give any examples*** of standard procedures that framework code might use which cause such a difference? Are there any known cases where the retain count is always different than what a new user might expect?
Again, a custom reference counting schemes and immortal objects. NSCFString literals fall into the latter category:
NSLog(#"%qu", [#"MyString" retainCount]);
// Logs: 1152921504606846975
Anything else you think is worth mentioning about retainCount?
It's useless as a debugging aid. Learn to use leak and zombie analyses, and use them often -- even after you have a handle on reference counting.
Update: bbum has posted an article entitled retainCount is useless. The article contains a thorough discussion of why -retainCount isn’t useful in the vast majority of cases.
The general rule of thumb is if you're using this method, you better be damn sure you know what you're doing. If you are using it for debugging a memory leak you're doing it wrong, if you're doing it to see what is going on with an object, you're doing it wrong.
There is one case where I have used it, and found it useful. That is in doing a shared object cache where I wanted to flush the object when nothing had a reference to it anymore. In this situation I waited until the retainCount is equal to 1, and then I can release it knowing that nothing else is holding onto it, this will obviously not work properly in garbage collected environments and there are better ways to do it. But this is still the only 'valid' use case I've seen for it, and isn't something a lot of people will be doing.
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.