I'm working on the finishing touches of a custom patch for Quartz Composer. As of right now, I have almost everything stripped out of the patch, and it's crashing telling me BAD ACCESS when I try to NSLog a NSDictionary value that is an ivar, and that worked perfectly in the last execution when I assigned it.
My code looks like this:
- (BOOL) startExecution:(id<QCPlugInContext>)context
{
lastBoutData = [[NSDictionary alloc] init ];
return YES;
}
- (BOOL) execute:(id<QCPlugInContext>)context atTime:(NSTimeInterval)time withArguments:(NSDictionary*)arguments
{
NSLog(#"self.inputBoutData: %#", self.inputBoutData);
NSLog(#"lastBoutData: %#", lastBoutData);
// have new data, put it on the output
self.lastBoutData = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithDictionary:self.inputBoutData];
NSLog(#"assigned: %#", lastBoutData);
return YES;
}
I can see the log shows that all three NSLog lines work perfectly until self.inputBoutData has input. Then, I see that self.inputBoutData is successfully copied to lastBoutData in the last NSLog line of the loop.
In the very next run of execute:atTime:withArguments:, self.inputBoutData is still full, but lastBoutData is blank again!!! I'm can't see how that can happen. Then, it runs one more loop, just like the last, and successfully copies the self.inputBoutData to lastBoutData, and it's logged again. The next time through, I get BAD ACCESS just before the second NSLog statement.
I was getting some error messages that told me that lastBoutData wasn't an NSDictionary, so out of desperation, I added a [lastBoutData retain], and it doesn't crash. I'm not releasing this ivar, so I'm not sure why I have to retain it. I do very similar things with other ivars in many other patches with no issues. What could I be missing? Why is this thing releasing on me, or is that even what is happening?
self.lastBoutData = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithDictionary:self.inputBoutData];
dictionaryWithDictionary: returns an autoreleased dictionary. And since your property was not (retain) nothing was retaining it. So your previous dictionary is de-referenced and leaked and your new dictionary is not retained.
consider:
[lastBoutData release];
lastBoutData = [[NSDictionary alloc] initWithDictionary:self.inputBoutData];
Or use your code as is and add retain to the property.
Related
I ran into this problem while trying to fix a memory leak with the facebook-ios-sdk. How do i handle this situation when passing objects from no arc compiled classe to arc enabled classe?
This is the code inside the non arc compiled Facebook library: (i removed the unnecessary stuff which is not related to the problem) as you can see, result object is not autoreleased or released.
- (void)handleResponseData:(NSData *)data {
NSError* error = nil;
id result = [self parseJsonResponse:data error:&error];
self.error = error;
// Call the defined delegate wich is my AppDelegate didLoad method wich is arc enabled
[_delegate request:self didLoad:result];
}
- (id)parseJsonResponse:(NSData *)data error:(NSError **)error {
SBJSON *jsonParser = [[SBJSON alloc] init];
//gets the object wich leaks or gets overreleased
id result = [jsonParser objectWithString:responseString];
[jsonParser release];
return result;
}
Now if i try to add autorelease to the result object, i am facing a NSZombie when my arc code in my AppDelegate try's to release the object. However if i leave the code like this i'm facing memory leaks whit the result object which gets not released.
am i missing something basic? i can't get my head around this?
Thanx for any advice! Chris
The result returned from -parseJsonResponse:... is autoreleased already (see note at bottom).
Since the name of the -parseJson method doesn't begin with new, alloc, copy or mutableCopy, the compiler assumes that it returns an object with a +0 reference count, meaning it needs to be retained by the calling code if it is to be kept around, and doesn't need to be released if it's not being kept around. That's a long winded way of saying that it should neither leak nor cause a crash in your ARC code as written in your question.
Passing objects between ARC code and manual reference counting code doesn't require any special handling. You just need to make sure that methods' names match their memory management semantics in the non-ARC code. It certainly seems like you've done that in this case, although as you say, you didn't post your complete code.
Note: Presumably, objectWithString: returns an autoreleased object. If it doesn't it, it should (because it doesn't start with alloc, new, copy, mutableCopy).
I run into a weird problem with a NSMutableArray today.
I'm parsing an XML file and I add the parsed items as custom objects. There are 37 items in total.
So, when my view loads, I did this, as a test:
[parser loadDataBase];
ProductItem* item = [parser.productDetail.prodItems objectAtIndex:36];
NSLog(#"test 1 %#", item.idItem);
self.product = parser.productDetail;
item = [self.product.prodItems objectAtIndex:36];
NSLog(#"test 2 %#", item.idItem);
[parser release];
At this point, everything works just fine. Both NSLog print the correct value for the last item in the mutable array.
The problem is when I try to add these items into a table.
When the app tries to get the item at index 36, to display its properties, instead of a ProductItem custom object, it gets a NSObject object... everything is lost for the last item, being replaced with a mere NSObject.
I do absolutely nothing with the array in that class, or any other class, except the parser.
Everything is ok when it leaves the parser, everything is ok when I read it from the parser, everything is ok when I check to see if I got all the values correctly from the parser. But somehow, the last value gets corrupted after this, even though I don't do anything that might cause this.
Here's the code I use in the cellForRow:
NSLog(#"index %i", indexPath.row);
ProductItem* item = [self.product.prodItems objectAtIndex:indexPath.row];
cell2.itemName.text = item.name;
The row is 36, the last one, and boom! EXC_BAD_ACCESS when I try to read the name property.
Does anyone here have a clue about what might be happening? I never ran into such a problem before
Thank you for your time and attention!
With some help from a colleague, I found out what was happening.
I was releasing my currentParsedItem in the parser's dealloc, so everything looked ok before the [parser release]; but after that the, "currentParsedItem" that was the last object in my mutable array was being set to nil in the dealloc function of the parser, and I ended up with a blank NSObject
Hope this tip helps others with a similar problem!
I'm trying to retain a reference to a Block that's been passed in to my class by a method, to call at a later time. I'm having trouble, however, maintaining a reference to it.
The obvious way, I thought, was to add it to an ivar collection, all of which are supposed to maintain strong references to their contents. But when I try to pull it back out, it's nil.
The code is pretty simple:
typedef void (^DataControllerCallback)(id rslt);
#interface DataController : NSObject {
NSMutableArray* queue;
}
- (void) addBlock:(DataControllerCallback)callback;
- (void) functionToBeCalledLater;
#end
#implementation DataController
- (id) init {
self = [super init];
if (self != nil) {
queue = [NSMutableArray new];
}
return self;
}
- (void) addBlock:(DataControllerCallback)callback {
NSDictionary* toAdd = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:
[callback copy], #"callback",
#"some other data", #"data", nil];
[queue addObject:toAdd];
}
- (void) functionToBeCalledLater {
NSDictionary* dict = [queue lastObject];
NSLog(#"%#", [dict objectForKey:#"data"]; //works
DataControllerCallback callback = [dict objectForKey:#"callback"]; //this is nil
callback(#"an arguemnt"); //EXC_BAD_ACCESS
}
What's happening?
Update: I've tried it with [callback copy] and just callback inserting into the dictionary, neither works.
Update 2: If I just stick my block into an NSMutableSet, as long as I call copy, I'm fine. It works great. But if it's in an NSDictionary, it doesn't.
I've actually tested it by putting a breakpoint right after the NSDict is created and the callback never gets inserted. The description reads clearly "1 key-value pair", not two.
I'm currently getting around this with a specialised class that just acts as a container. The callback property is declared as strong; I don't even need to use copy.
The question still stands, though: why is this happening? Why won't an NSDictionary store a Block? Does it have something to do with the fact that I'm targeting iOS 4.3 and thus ARC must be built in as a static library?
Update 3: Ladies and gentleman: I am an idiot.
The code I presented here was obviously a simplified version of the actual code; most particularly, it was leaving some key/value pairs out of the dictionary.
If you're storing a value in an NSDictionary using [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:], you had better be damn sure one of those values isn't nil.
One of them was.
ICYMI, it was causing an early termination of the argument list. I had a userInfo-type argument being passed into one of the "add to queue" methods, and you could, of course, pass in "nil". Then when I constructed the dictionary, chucking in that argument caused the constructor to think I had terminated the argument list. #"callback" was the last value in the dictionary constructor and it was never being stored.
Contrary to popular mis-conception, ARC does not automatically de-stackify Blocks passed as arguments to methods. It only de-stackify's automatically when a block is returned from a method/function.
I.e. this....
[dict setObject: ^{;} forKey: #"boom"];
... will crash if dict survives beyond the scope and you attempt to use the block (actually, it won't in this case because that is a static block, but that is a compiler detail that you can't rely on).
This is documented here:
How do blocks work in ARC?
Blocks “just work” when you pass blocks up the stack in ARC mode, such
as in a return. You don’t have to call Block Copy any more. You
still need to use [^{} copy] when passing “down” the stack into
arrayWithObjects: and other methods that do a retain.
The return value behavior could be automated because it is always correct to return a heap based block (and always an error to return a stack based block). In the case of a block-as-an-argument, it is impossible to automate the behavior in a way that would be both very efficient and always correct.
The analyzer likely should have warned about this use. If it didn't, file a bug.
(I derped a stack when I meant a heap. Sorry about that.)
The compiler doesn't automate blocks-as-parameters for a few reasons:
unnecessarily copying a block to the heap can be a significant performance penalty
multiple-copies of a block can multiply that performance penalty significantly.
I.e.:
doSomethingSynchronous(aBlock);
doSomethingSynchronous(aBlock);
doSomethingSynchronous(aBlock);
doSomethingSynchronous(aBlock);
If that were to imply four Block_copy() operations and aBlock contained a significant quantity of captured state, that'd be a huge potential hit.
• There are only so many hours in the day and automating the handling of parameters is rife with non-obvious edge cases. If this were handled automatically in the future, it could be done without breaking existing code and, thus, maybe it will be done in the future.
I.e. the compiler could generate:
aBlock = [aBlock copy];
doSomethingSynchronous(aBlock);
doSomethingSynchronous(aBlock);
doSomethingSynchronous(aBlock);
doSomethingSynchronous(aBlock);
[aBlock release];
Not only would this fix the problem of a block-as-param, but it would also only produce one copy of the block across all potential uses.
The question still stands, though: why is this happening? Why won't an
NSDictionary store a Block? Does it have something to do with the fact
that I'm targeting iOS 4.3 and thus ARC must be built in as a static
library?
Something bizarre is going on, then. Coincidentally, I've been using blocks-as-values in an ARC based application in the last week and it is working fine.
Do you have a minimal example handy?
i've a function like this:
#property(nonatomic,retain) NSMutableArray *array;
#synthesize array = _array;
(NSMutableArray *) name
{
self.array = [[NSMutableArray alloc]init];
[_array addObject:object];
[object release];
return [_array autorelase];
}
In the other function i've a property like the property above, named result, and i make:
self.result = [... name];
Then in dealloc i make
[_result release];
and it crashes in this point, how can i solve this?
I've tried many roads, but or it crashes, or i see memory leak in Instruments, where am i wronging?
Thanks.
While there's a lot wrong with this code, the likely cause of your crash is that you're releasing object within -name without taking ownership of it- unless you're creating object within the method through a call to -alloc, -new, or -copy, that method doesn't own it and isn't responsible for releasing it. This is causing that object to be invalid within the NSMutableArray, so when _result releases, it attempts to release an invalid piece of memory and crashes.
Also, properties aren't simply local variables for individual functions, they're member variables for instances of the class for which you're writing these classes. If your end goal is only to return an autoreleased array and set it to result you could do the following:
- (NSMutableArray *) name {
//call a convenience method- it comes back autoreleased
NSMutableArray* theArray = [NSMutableArray array];
[theArray addObject:object];
//don't release object unless you took ownership of it in this function
return theArray;
}
then outside the function, either call self.result = [... name] or [self setResult:[... name]];
You have a very strange method definition (the header should have a - before the return type), and inside that definition you are accessing a variable called object that doesn't seem to exist. I'm not sure what you want, but you've got at least one memory problem. The array that you create in name gets leaked every time the method is called. If you add some details, like the crash message, someone may be able to help more.
I am getting a EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGBUS) on this line in my iPhone project:
if (timeoutTimer) [timeoutTimer invalidate];
The thing that has me stumped is that I don't understand how that line could crash, since the if statement is meant to be checking for nil. Am I misunderstanding the way Objective-C works, or do line numbers in crash statements sometime have the wrong line in them?
Just because a variable is set to a value other than nil doesn't mean it's pointing to a valid object. For example:
id object = [[NSObject alloc] init];
[object release];
NSLog(#"%#", object); // Not nil, but a deallocated object,
// meaning a likely crash
Your timer has probably already been gotten rid of (or possibly hasn't been created at all?) but the variable wasn't set to nil.
I just ran into a similar issue, so here's another example of what might cause a check such as yours to fail.
In my case, I was getting the value from a dictionary like this:
NSString *text = [dict objectForKey:#"text"];
Later on, I was using the variable like this:
if (text) {
// do something with "text"
}
This resulted in a EXC_BAD_ACCESS error and program crash.
The problem was that my dictionary used NSNull values in cases where an object had an empty value (it had been deserialized from JSON), since NSDictionary cannot hold nil values. I ended up working around it like this:
NSString *text = [dict objectForKey:#"text"];
if ([[NSNull null] isEqual:text]) {
text = nil;
}
They should be the same. Perhaps the line number is in fact incorrect.
Look for other possible errors near that in your code and see if you find anything.