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.
Related
I have read Apple's memory management guide, and think I understand the practices that should be followed to ensure proper memory management in my application.
At present it looks like there are no memory leaks in my code. But as my code grows more complex, I wonder whether there is any particular pattern I should follow to keep track of allocations and deallocations of objects.
Does it make sense to create some kind of global object that is present throughout the execution of the application which contains a count of the number of active objects of a type? Each object could increment the count of their type in their init method, and decrement it in dealloc. The global object could verify at appropriate times if the count of a particular type is zero of not.
EDIT: I am aware of how to use the leaks too, as well as how to analyze the project using Xcode. The reason for this post is to keep track of cases which may not be detected through leaks or analyze easily.
EDIT: Also, it seems to make sense to have something like this so that leaks can be detected in builds early by running unit tests that check the global object. I guess that as an inexperienced objective-c programmer I would benefit from the views of others on this.
Each object could increment the count of their type in their init
method, and decrement it in dealloc.
To do that right, you'll have to do one of the following: 1) override behavior at some common point, such as NSObject's -init or , or 2) add the appropriate code to the designated initializer of every single class. Neither seems simple.
The global object could verify at appropriate times if the count of a
particular type is zero of not.
Sounds good, but can you elaborate a bit on "appropriate times"? How would you know at any given point in the life of your program which classes should have zero instances? You'd have a pretty good idea that there should be no objects at the end of the program, but Instruments could tell you the same thing in that case.
Objective-C has taken several steps to make memory management much simpler. Use properties and synthesized accessors where you can, as they essentially manage your objects for you. A more recent improvement is ARC, which goes even further toward automating most memory management tasks. You basically let the compiler figure out where to put the memory management calls -- it's like garbage collection without the garbage collector. Learn to use those tools well before you try to invent new ones.
Don't go that route... it's a pain in single inheritance. Most importantly, there are excellent tools at your disposal which you should master before thinking you must create some global counter. The global counter exists in a few tools already -- Learn them!
The way you combat it is to learn how to balance and manage everything correctly when it's written. It's really very simple in hindsight.
ARC is another option -- really that just postpones your understanding.
The first "design pattern" I recommend it to use release instead of autorelease where possible (although generally more useful for over-releases).
Next, run the leaks instrument/util regularly and fix all leaks/zombies immediately.
Third, learn the existing tools as you go! These tools can do really crazy stuff, like record the backtrace of every allocation and every reference count. You can pause your program's execution and view what allocations exist, alloc counts, backtraces, and all sorts of other stats.
I'm trying to track down some bugs, and one of them is related to a memory leak. It's an object that I can tell that something still has a reference to, since Instruments still shows it as being alive, but Instruments does not register it as a leak.
Is there anyway to look at an instance of an object in Objective-C and see what other objects still have a reference to that object?
I would recommend using the Allocations/ObjectAllocations Instruments template and then in the top right corner type the class name of your object (in the Category field).
You can then see the allocations increasing as you suggest and by viewing the extended detail you can see where they were allocated.
All content below this point was added by the OP (joshbuhler)
In the screenshot below, change the filter to "Objects List", and then by clicking on the little arrow to the right of the object's address, the history of memory events (alloc/retain/release/dealloc) will be show for that object. It won't show you exactly what is hanging onto that object, but it will give you some very useful info for tracking it down.
Cautionary Tail: :)
In the process of searching for a memory leak, I set a breakpoint (really a logpoint) in Xcode that would log the value of self when it was triggered troublesome logpoint image. Meanwhile I found the leak and patched it, but the memory usage wasn't leveling out, and my de-init was never getting called. The logpoint I set earlier was actually causing the retain count of my object to increase, and in turn that prevented de-init from ever getting called. I happened to discover this after several hours of wild goose chases which culminated in me stepping through my object's methods line by line, issuing p CFGetRetainCount(self) from debug console. When I stepped over the line with the logpoint, the retain count went up. At first I assumed it was some strange side effect of my code. I moved that logpoint so that I could set a normal breakpoint on that line, and my problem moved with it. I disabled the logpoint and the leak was gone. Hopefully this can help someone else.
If you're using xCode you can use the Performance tools to find the memory leaks. That will give you a nice graph of ALL memory allocation and if they are released or leaked.
xcode -> run -> Start with Performance Tools -> Leaks.
Memory leak detection tools
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.
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.
Memory (and resource) leaks happen. How do you make sure they don't?
What tips & techniques would you suggest to help avoid creating memory leaks in first place?
Once you have an application that is leaking how do you track down the source of leaks?
(Oh and please avoid the "just use GC" answer. Until the iPhone supports GC this isn't a valid answer, and even then - it is possible to leak resources and memory on GC)
In XCode 4.5, use the built in Static Analyzer.
In versions of XCode prior to 3.3, you might have to download the static analyzer. These links show you how:
Use the LLVM/Clang Static Analyzer
To avoid creating memory leaks in the first place, use the Clang Static Analyzer to -- unsurprisingly -- analyse your C and Objective-C code (no C++ yet) on Mac OS X 10.5. It's trivial to install and use:
Download the latest version from this page.
From the command-line, cd to your project directory.
Execute scan-build -k -V xcodebuild.
(There are some additional constraints etc., in particular you should analyze a project in its "Debug" configuration -- see http://clang.llvm.org/StaticAnalysisUsage.html for details -- the but that's more-or-less what it boils down to.)
The analyser then produces a set of web pages for you that shows likely memory management and other basic problems that the compiler is unable to detect.
If your project does not target Mac OS X desktop, there are a couple of other details:
Set the Base SDK for All Configurations to an SDK that uses the Mac OS X desktop frameworks...
Set the Command Line Build to use the Debug configuration.
(This is largely the same answer as to this question.)
Don't overthink memory management
For some reason, many developers (especially early on) make memory management more difficult for themselves than it ever need be, frequently by overthinking the problem or imagining it to be more complicated than it is.
The fundamental rules are very simple. You should concentrate just on following those. Don't worry about what other objects might do, or what the retain count is of your object. Trust that everyone else is abiding by the same contract and it will all Just Work.
In particular, I'll reiterate the point about not worrying about the retain count of your objects. The retain count itself may be misleading for various reasons. If you find yourself logging the retain count of an object, you're almost certainly heading down the wrong path. Step back and ask yourself, are you following the fundamental rules?
Always use accessor methods; declare accessors using properties
You make life much simpler for yourself if you always use accessor methods to assign values to instance variables (except in init* and dealloc methods). Apart from ensuring that any side-effects (such as KVO change notifications) are properly triggered, it makes it much less likely that you'll suffer a copy-and-paste or some other logic error than if you sprinkle your code with retains and releases.
When declaring accessors, you should always use the Objective-C 2 properties feature. The property declarations make the memory management semantics of the accessors explicit. They also provide an easy way for you to cross-check with your dealloc method to make sure that you have released all the properties you declared as retain or copy.
The Instruments Leaks tool is pretty good at finding a certain class of memory leak. Just use "Start with Performance Tool" / "Leaks" menu item to automatically run your application through this tool. Works for Mac OS X and iPhone (simulator or device).
The Leaks tool helps you find sources of leaks, but doesn't help so much tracking down the where the leaked memory is being retained.
Follow the rules for retaining and releasing (or use Garbage Collection). They're summarized here.
Use Instruments to track down leaks. You can run an application under Instruments by using Build > Start With Performance Tool in Xcode.
I remember using a tool by Omni a while back when I was trying to track down some memory leaks that would show all retain/release/autorelease calls on an object. I think it showed stack traces for the allocation as well as all retains and releases on the object.
http://www.omnigroup.com/developer/omniobjectmeter/
First of all, it's vitally important that your use of [ ] and { } brackets and braces match the universal standard. OK, just kiddin'.
When looking at leaks, you can assume that the leak is due to a problem in your code but that's not 100% of the fault. In some cases, there may be something happening in Apple's (gasp!) code that is at fault. And it may be something that's hard to find, because it doesn't show up as cocoa objects being allocated. I've reported leak bugs to Apple in the past.
Leaks are sometimes hard to find because the clues you find (e.g. hundreds of strings leaked) may happen not because those objects directly responsible for the strings are leaking, but because something is leaking that object. Often you have to dig through the leaves and branches of a leaking 'tree' in order to find the 'root' of the problem.
Prevention: One of my main rules is to really, really, really avoid ever allocating an object without just autoreleasing it right there on the spot. Anywhere that you alloc/init an object and then release it later on down in the block of code is an opportunity for you to make a mistake. Either you forget to release it, or you throw an exception so that the release never gets called, or you put a 'return' statement for early exit somewhere in the method (something I try to avoid also).
You can build the beta port of Valgrind from here: http://www.sealiesoftware.com/valgrind/
It's far more useful than any static analysis, but doesn't have any special Cocoa support yet that I know of.
Obviously you need to understand the basic memory management concepts to begin with. But in terms of chasing down leaks, I highly recommend reading this tutorial on using the Leaks mode in Instruments.