I'm creating a library that will be used by multiple types of iOS apps. Part of my API allows a user to specify routines that will be used for the library's allocations. My library is implemented mostly in C++, so this has been straightforward so far.
However, I've recently been adding some user interface functionality to the library: displaying a UIWebView using a custom view controller. I'm not sure how to ensure that my allocators are used for these objects.
How can I ensure that all of the Cocoa UI objects created by my library are allocated with my own functions?
I've tried a few things including overriding -initWithZone and calling CFAllocatorSetDefault before my -init. None of them have worked yet; and honestly I'm still a beginner with Objective C and Cocoa, so I'd like to know what the "correct" way to do this is.
I'm unable to find evidence of it now, but it certainly was the case that CFAllocator, malloc_zone_t and NSZone were all toll-free bridged. So you could just cast your allocator to an NSZone and pass it along.
I think the problem you're going to face is that NSZone was added at NextStep so as to allow a program to maintain multiple heaps, with the feeling being that it would allow programmers to keep related objects close to one another in memory — which is good for caching — and in some cases to throw away entire object graphs without walking the graph, which is obviously fast. However the former was of little benefit in practice and the latter is more likely to create problems than to be of actual benefit. So Apple has back-peddled from NSZones, gradually turning the related runtime calls into no-ops and removing detailed documentation. Apple's feeling is that, at the Objective-C level, you should not only maintain only a single heap (which is a side issue from your point of view) but that they'll always know best how to maintain it.
EDIT: an alternative idea is to replace NSObject's alloc, that being the thing that creates memory. The Objective-C runtime is well-defined enough that we know exactly what behaviour alloc exhibits, so that a vanilla version might be:
+ (id)alloc
{
Class *newInstance;
// we'll use calloc to ensure we get correct initial behaviour of
// everything equal to 0, and use the runtime's class_getInstanceSize
// so that we're allocating the correct amount of memory irrespective
// of whether this call has fallen through from a subclass
newInstance = (Class *)calloc(1, class_getInstanceSize(self));
// the thing that defines a class is that the first thing stored in
// it is the isa pointer, which points to the metaclass. So we'll
// set the isa pointer appropriately
*newInstance = self;
return (id)newInstance;
}
To replace NSObject's normal init, you'd probably want to define your alternative as a category method on NSObject named, say, customInit, then use class_getClassMethod, class_getMethodImplementation and method_setImplementation directly on [NSObject class] to switch it into place. See the Object-C Runtime Reference for documentation on those.
Related
I'm writing a C++ application using Metal API (objective C) and MRC (Manual Reference Counting). I have a very limited experience with ObjC. Most of the Metal API objects are defined as protocols and created as an object returned from C-function or other object's method (ex. MTLDevice newBufferWithLength). To know how to release objects created this way I need to know if they have been set autoreleased or not (I can't call release an autoreleased object with retain count 1 for instance). The problem is I can't find any description in Metal API documentation which would answer this question. I've only read in user guide that all so called lightweight objects are created autoreleased. There are three examples of autoreleased objects but not sure if I can just assume that rest of the objects are not autoreleased. In cocoa many objects also may be created without alloc+init, being returned from a static method (ex NSString string) so the problem seems not to be only Metal related.
Thank you for your help.
The usual Objective-C rule is that creating scope is also responsible to release object. So, in virtually all cases, except well-documented exceptions, returned object is autoreleased (both returned through return value or out-arguments). More correct way to see it is that object is always returned with +0 scope-local retain count, so you are expected to retain it if needed. Reading the manual it seems that Metal API is one of Apple's frameworks, so it should follow this rule unless warned with bold statements. C functions in Objective-C are also expected to behave that way. (There is no difference between a method and a function in terms of resource management.)
For that "alloc-init vs. [NSString string]" part: MRC code either returns [NSString string], which is already +0, or [[[NSString alloc] init] autorelease]. Otherwise it breaks the convention. Exceptions are -[init] and +[new...] methods itself that return +1. Under ARC there is no difference between alloc-init/string, because ARC knows the convention and does the right thing, optimizing excessive retains/releases where possible.
Also note that -[retainCount] is meaningless and "considered harmful", because you never know how many retain-autorelease calls were performed and what objc-runtime accounting is in effect even with your own objects.
ARC is really a great option unless you're writing some sort of Objective-C -to- Whatever bridge, where retain counts and/or cycles must be managed explicitly due to lack of context. It doesn't take anything from you, giving in most cases a big advantage of not managing resources at all.
I have ARC code of the following form:
NSMutableData* someData = [NSMutableData dataWithLength:123];
...
CTRunGetGlyphs(run, CGRangeMake(0, 0), someData.mutableBytes);
...
const CGGlyph *glyphs = [someData mutableBytes];
...
...followed by code that reads memory from glyphs but does nothing with someData, which isn't referenced anymore. Note that CGGlyph is not an object type but an unsigned integer.
Do I have to worry that the memory in someData might get freed before I am done with glyphs (which is actually just pointing insidesomeData)?
All this code is WITHIN the same scope (i.e., a single selector), and glyphs and someData both fall out of scope at the same time.
PS In an earlier draft of this question I referred to 'garbage collection', which didn't really apply to my project. That's why some answers below give it equal treatment with what happens under ARC.
You are potentially in trouble whether you use GC or, as others have recommended instead, ARC. What you are dealing with is an internal pointer which is not considered an owning reference in either GC or ARC in general - unless the implementation has special-cased NSData. Without that owning reference either GC or ARC might remove the object. The problem you face is peculiar to internal pointers.
As you describe your situation the safest thing to do is to hang onto the real reference. You could do this by assigning the NSData reference to either an instance variable or a static (method local if you wish) variable and then assigning nil to that variable when you've done with the internal pointer. In the case of static be careful about concurrency!
In practice your code will probably work in both GC and ARC, probably more likely in ARC, but either could conceivably bite you especially as compilers change. For the cost of one variable declaration and one extra assignment you avoid the problem, cheap insurance.
[See this discussion as an example of short lifetime under ARC.]
Under actual, real garbage collection that code is potentially a problem. Objects may be released as soon as there is no longer any reference to them and the compiler may discard the reference at any time if you never use it again. For optimisation purposes scope is just a way of putting an upper limit on that sort of thing, not a way of dictating it absolutely.
You can use NSAllocateCollectable to attach lifecycle calculation to C primitive pointers, though it's messy and slightly convoluted.
Garbage collection was never implemented in iOS and is now deprecated on the Mac (as referenced at the very bottom of this FAQ), in both cases in favour of automatic reference counting (ARC). ARC adds retains and releases where it can see that they're implicitly needed. Sadly it can perform some neat tricks that weren't previously possible, such as retrieving objects from the autorelease pool if they've been used as return results. So that has the same net effect as the garbage collection approach — the object may be released at any point after the final reference to it vanishes.
A workaround would be to create a class like:
#interface PFDoNothing
+ (void)doNothingWith:(id)object;
#end
Which is implemented to do nothing. Post your autoreleased object to it after you've finished using the internal memory. Objective-C's dynamic dispatch means that it isn't safe for the compiler to optimise the call away — it has no way of knowing you (or the KVO mechanisms or whatever other actor) haven't done something like a method swizzle at runtime.
EDIT: NSData being a special case because it offers direct C-level access to object-held memory, it's not difficult to find explicit discussions of the GC situation at least. See this thread on Cocoabuilder for a pretty good one though the same caveat as above applies, i.e. garbage collection is deprecated and automatic reference counting acts differently.
The following is a generic answer that does not necessarily reflect Objective-C GC support. However, various GC implementaitons, including ref-counting, can be thought of in terms of Reachability, quirks aside.
In a GC language, an object is guaranteed to exist as long as it is Strongly-Reachable; the "roots" of these Strong-Reachability graphs can vary by language and executing environment. The exact meaning of "Strongly" also varies, but generally means that the edges are Strong-References. (In a manual ref-counting scenario each edge can be thought of as an unmatched "retain" from a given "owner".)
C# on the CLR/.NET is one such implementation where a variable can remain in scope and yet not function as a "root" for a reachability-graph. See the Systems.Timer.Timer class and look for GC.KeepAlive:
If the timer is declared in a long-running method, use KeepAlive to prevent garbage collection from occurring [on the timer object] before the method ends.
As of summer 2012, things are in the process of change for Apple objects that return inner pointers of non-object type. In the release notes for Mountain Lion, Apple says:
NS_RETURNS_INNER_POINTER
Methods which return pointers (other than Objective C object type)
have been decorated with the clang compiler attribute
objc_returns_inner_pointer (when compiling with clang) to prevent the
compiler from aggressively releasing the receiver expression of those
messages, which no longer appear to be referenced, while the returned
pointer may still be in use.
Inspection of the NSData.h header file shows that this also applies from iOS 6 onward.
Also note that NS_RETURNS_INNER_POINTER is defined as __attribute__((objc_returns_inner_pointer)) in the clang specification, which makes it such that
the object's lifetime will be extended until at least the earliest of:
the last use of the returned pointer, or any pointer derived from it,
in the calling function;
or the autorelease pool is restored to a
previous state.
Caveats:
If you're using anything older then Mountain Lion or iOS 6 you will still need to use any of the methods discussed here (e.g., __attribute__((objc_precise_lifetime))) when declaring your local NSData or NSMutableData objects.
Also, even with the newest compiler and Apple libraries, if you use older or third party libraries with objects that do not decorate their inner-pointer-returning methods with __attribute__((objc_returns_inner_pointer)) you will need to decorate your local variables declarations of such objects with __attribute__((objc_precise_lifetime)) or use one of the other methods discussed in the answers.
I'm starting to code in objective-c and I've just realized that objects can only be passed by reference.
What if I need an object to use static memory by default and to be copied instead of referenced?
For example, I have an object Color with 3 int components r, g and b. I dont want these objects to be in dynamic memory and referenced when passing to functions, I want them immutable and to be copied like an int or a float.
I know I can use a c struct, but I also need the object Color to have methods that gets/sets lightness, hue, saturation, etc. I want my code to be object oriented.
Is there any solution to this?
EDIT: If for example I'm building a 3d game engine, where I'll have classes like Vector2, Vector3, Matrix, Ray, Color, etc: 1) I need them to be mutable. 2) The size of the objects is roughly the same size of a pointer, so why would I be copying pointers when I can copy the object? It would be simpler, more efficient, and I wouldnt need to manage memory, specially on methods that returns colors. And In the case of a game engine, efficiency is critical.
So, if there is no solution to this... Should I use c-structs and use c-function to work on them? Isn't there a better choice?
Thanks.
You can't do this. This isn't how Objective-C works (at least the Apple/GNU version*). It simply isn't designed for that sort of extreme low-level efficiency. Objects are allocated in dynamic memory and their lifetimes are controlled by methods you call on them, and that's just how it works. If you want more low-level efficiency, you can either use plain C structs or C++. But keep in mind that worrying about this is pointless in 99% of circumstances — the epitome of premature optimization. Objective-C programs are generally very competitive with C++ equivalents both in execution speed and memory use despite this minor inefficiency. I wouldn't go for a more difficult solution until profiling had proved it to be necessary.
Also, when you're new to Objective-C, it's easy to psych yourself out over memory management. In a normal Cocoa (Touch) program, you shouldn't need to bother about it too much. Return autoreleased objects from methods, use setters to assign objects you want to keep around.
*Note: There was an old implementation of Objective-C called the Portable Object Compiler that did have this ability, but it's unrelated to and incompatible with the Objective-C used on Macs and iOS devices. Also, the Apple Objective-C runtime includes special support for Blocks to be allocated on the stack, which is why you must copy them (copy reproduces the block in dynamic memory like a normal object) if you want to store them.
What if I need an object to use static memory by default and to be copied instead of referenced?
You don't.
Seriously. You never need an object to use static memory or be allocated on the stack. C++ allows you to do it, but no other object oriented language I know does.
For example, I have an object Color with 3 int components r, g and b. I dont want these objects to be in dynamic memory and referenced when passing to functions, I want them immutable and to be copied like an int or a float.
Why do you not want the objects to be in static memory? What advantage do you think that gives you?
On the other hand it's easy to make Objective-C objects immutable. Just make the instance variables private and don't provide any methods that can change them once the object is initialised. This is exactly how the built in immutable classes work e.g. NSArray, NSString.
One solution that people use sometimes is to use a singleton object (assuming you only need one of the objects for your entire app's lifetime). In that case, you define a class method on the class and have it return an object that it creates once when it is first requested. So you can do something like:
#implementation MyObject
+ (MyObject *)sharedObjectInstance
{
static MyObject *theObject=nil;
if (theObject==nil)
{
theObject = [[MyObject alloc] init];
}
return theObject;
}
#end
Of course the object itself isn't what's being statically allocated, it's the pointer to the object that's statically allocated, but in any case the object will stick around until the application terminates.
There are times when you want to do this because you really only want one globally shared instance of a particular object. However, if that's not your objective, I'm not sure why you'd want to do what you're describing. You can always use the -copy method to create a copy of an object (assuming the object conforms to the NSCopying protocol) to manipulate without touching the original.
EDIT: Based on your comments above it seems you just want to have immutable objects that you can copy and modify the copies. So using -copy is probably the way to go.
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.
As is common knowledge, calls to alloc/copy/retain in Objective-C imply ownership and need to be balanced by a call to autorelease/release. How do you succinctly describe where this should happen? The word "succinct" is key. I can usually use intuition to guide me, but would like an explicit principle in case intuition fails and that can be use in discussions.
Properties simplify the matter (the rule is auto-/release happens in -dealloc and setters), but sometimes properties aren't a viable option (e.g. not everyone uses ObjC 2.0).
Sometimes the release should be in the same block. Other times the alloc/copy/retain happens in one method, which has a corresponding method where the release should occur (e.g. -init and -dealloc). It's this pairing of methods (where a method may be paired with itself) that seems to be key, but how can that be put into words? Also, what cases does the method-pairing notion miss? It doesn't seem to cover where you release properties, as setters are self-paired and -dealloc releases objects that aren't alloc/copy/retained in -init.
It feels like the object model is involved with my difficulty. There doesn't seem to be an element of the model that I can attach retain/release pairing to. Methods transform objects from valid state to valid state and send messages to other objects. The only natural pairings I see are object creation/destruction and method enter/exit.
Background:
This question was inspired by: "NSMutableDictionary does not get added into NSMutableArray". The asker of that question was releasing objects, but in such a way that might cause memory leaks. The alloc/copy/retain calls were generally balanced by releases, but in such a way that could cause memory leaks. The class was a delegate; some members were created in a delegate method (-parser:didStartElement:...) and released in -dealloc rather than in the corresponding (-parser:didEndElement:...) method. In this instance, properties seemed a good solution, but the question still remained of how to handle releasing when properties weren't involved.
Properties simplify the matter (the rule is auto-/release happens in -dealloc and setters), but sometimes properties aren't a viable option (e.g. not everyone uses ObjC 2.0).
This is a misunderstanding of the history of properties. While properties are new, accessors have always been a key part of ObjC. Properties just made it easier to write accessors. If you always use accessors, and you should, than most of these questions go away.
Before we had properties, we used Xcode's built-in accessor-writer (in the Script>Code menu), or with useful tools like Accessorizer to simplify the job (Accessorizer still simplifies property code). Or we just typed a lot of getters and setters by hand.
The question isn't where it should happen, it's when.
Release or autorelease an object if you have created it with +alloc, +new or -copy, or if you have sent it a -retain message.
Send -release when you don't care if the object continues to exist. Send -autorelease if you want to return it from the method you're in, but you don't care what happens to it after that.
I wouldn't say that dealloc is where you would call autorelease. And unless your object, whatever it may be, is linked to the life of a class, it doesn't necessarily need to be kept around for a retain in dealloc.
Here are my rules of thumb. You may do things in other ways.
I use release if the life of the
object I am using is limited to the
routine I am in now. Thus the object
gets created and released in that
routine. This is also the preferred
way if I am creating a lot of objects
in a routine, such as in a loop, and
I might want to release each object
before the next one is created in the
loop.
If the object I created in a method
needs to be passed back to the
caller, but I assume that the use of
the object will be transient and
limited to this run of the runloop, I
use autorelease. Here, I am trying to mimic many of Apple's convenience routines. (Want a quick string to use for a short period? Here you go, don't worry about owning it and it will get disposed appropriately.)
If I believe the object is to be kept
on a semi-permanent basis (like
longer than this run of the runloop),
I use create/new/copy in my method
name so the caller knows that they
are the owner of the object and will
have to release the object.
Any objects that are created by a
class and kept as a property with
retain (whether through the property
declaration or not), I release those
in dealloc (or in viewDidUnload as
appropriate).
Try not to let all this memory management overwhelm you. It is a lot easier than it sounds, and looking at a bunch of Apple's samples, and writing your own (and suffering bugs) will make you understand it better.