I can't figure out why my app is crashing after a few times I'm doing:
potionsT is nonatomic, retain, readonly.
-(void)First:(NSString*)Potions {
potionsT = [[NSString alloc] initWithString:Potions];
}
-(void)After:(NSString*)Potions {
[potionsT release];
potionsT = [[NSString alloc] initWithString:Potions];
You see, I'm first calling First and after that I'm calling a few times After: and wopes, it crashes. with ECX_BAD_ACCESS.. I'm pretty noob with all that memory manage thing, I know that... Thanks!
The point of retained property is it handles retain and release when you set it.
- (void)first:(NSString*)potions
{
self.potionsT = potions; // will automatically release old value and retain new
}
- (void)after:(NSString*)potions
{
self.potionsT = potions; // same as above
}
Also note how i renamed your Potions to potions, First: to first:, and After: to after:. Objective-C naming convention is to start variables and methods with lowercase letter, and class names with capital.
Did you #synthesize the property in the #implementation for the class? If so, then you should use:
self.potionsT = Potions;
if you use
potionsT = ...
then you are accessing the ivar, not the property. To access the property and let it do the memory management for you, you must precede it with an instance reference, and that can also be self.
If you use the property, you should not release potionsT manually, since the property already does that for you.
If you've set up potionsT as a property, you should access it that way:
-(void)first:(NSString*)potions {
self.potionsT = potions;
}
-(void)after:(NSString*)potions {
self.potionsT = potions;
}
In both cases, I changed your code to use the accessor for potionsT (that's what the self.potionsT means). I'm also not creating a new string, but just retaining the provided one. Since NSStrings are immutable, the result is the same. For best results, though, change the potionT property from retain to copy. That way, if a mutable string gets passed in, it'll be copied instead of retained (and immutable strings will still just be retained).
Related
I dont want to return manch because if i autorelease before i return it ,it becomes invalid to others. so i was thinking of this :
classA
-(NSMutableArray*)set:(NSMutableArray*)data
{
manch= [[data mutableCopy]autorelease] ;
int count=2*[data count]; //to not enter infinity loop
for(int k=0;k< count;k=k+2)
{
if(k==count-1)
[manch addObject:[NSNumber numberWithInt:![[manch objectAtIndex:k] integerValue] ] ];
}
data=[manch mutuableCopy];
return data;
}
My goal is to create a class that gets an NSMutuableArray do some calculations, than return it, and NOT TO BE DEPEND on this class anymore .
EDIT :
As people here ask.
in another classB(the user of the method above), i have in the interface :
NSMutuableArray *data ;
and on the .m file init method i have
data=[[NSMutuableArray alloc]init];
to use the function from my question, i do :
mIns=[[classA alloc]init];
data= [mIns set:[self decimalToBinary:autoWord]];
than i loose data later.
I dont want to return manch because if i autorelease before i return it ,it becomes invalid to others. so i was thinking of this:
This is an incorrect statement, you can return an autoreleased object, that's a sane thing to do. It's worth noting that you should design your method names correctly to inform the user what sort of object is returned. Any method whose name begins with alloc, new, copy, or mutableCopy will return a retained object. (Source)
In your case, your method name is set:, which informs the user of this method that it will return a non retained object (almost always an autoreleased object). This is because it isn't prefixed with any of those words mentioned above.
In that case, the issue you have is with the user of the method; they are not retaining a reference to the object being returned. As such, the user of the method should use it as so:
#interface ClassName () {
NSMutableArray* m_ivarArray;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray* propertyArray;
#end
NSMutableArray* data = ...;
// If using a property with retain, setting via "self." will retain it for you
self.propertyArray = [self set:data];
// If using an ivar (which doesn't do the retain for you)
m_ivarArray = [[self set:data] retain];
You can avoid these issues by using Automatic Reference Counting (ARC, More Information), which will handle this sort of memory management for you. It is still important that you use the correct naming conventions, as ARC will judge how to manage your memory based on this (in certain situations)
Update: After seeing your update, I can see the problem.
data=[[NSMutuableArray alloc]init];
This is creating a new instance of NSMutableArray, one which is correctly retained (due to what I mentioned before).
data= [mIns set:[self decimalToBinary:autoWord]];
This is replacing the object held in data with a new NSMutableArray, one that is autoreleased. The previous instance you created has been lost, and you've replaced it with another one. This new instance has not been retained, and as such, will be released unexpectedly.
To fix, you need to use this instead:
NSMutableArray* data = [[mIns set:[self decimalToBinary:autoWord]] retain];
You don't need to alloc/init a variable if it will be populated by some other object later on. I strongly suggest brushing up on how this all works, this might be a good start.
I was told by a fellow StackOverflow user that I should not use the getter method when releasing a property:
#property(nonatmic, retain) Type* variable;
#synthesize variable;
// wrong
[self.variable release];
// right
[variable release];
He did not explain in detail why. They appear the same to me. My iOS book said the getter on a property will look like this:
- (id)variable {
return variable;
}
So doesn't this mean [self variable], self.variable, and variable are all the same?
For a retained property with no custom accessor, you can release the object by:
self.variable = nil;
This has the effect of setting the ivar (which may not be called 'variable' if you have only declared properties) to nil and releasing the previous value.
As others have pointed out, either directly releasing the ivar (if available) or using the method above is OK - what you must not do is call release on the variable returned from a getter.
You can optionally write custom getter behavior, which may result in completely different behavior. So, you cannot always assume that [variable release] has the same results as [self.variable release].
As well, you can write custom properties without an exclusive ivar backing them... it can get messy fast if you start releasing objects from references returned by getters!
There may be additional reasons that I'm unaware of...
A typical getter will look more like this:
- (id)variable {
return [[variable retain] autorelease];
}
So if you use [self.variable release] you have an additional retain and autorelease that you don't really need when you just want to release the object and that cause the object to be released later than necessary (when the autorelease pool is drained).
Typically, you would either use self.variable = nil which has the benefit that it also sets the variable to nil (avoiding crashes due to dangling pointers), or [variable release] which is the fastest and may be more appropriate in a dealloc method if your setter has custom logic.
not all getters take this form:
- (id)variable { return variable; }
...that is merely the most primitive form. properties alone should suggest more combinations, which alter the implementation. the primitive accessor above does not account for idioms used in conjunction with memory management, atomicity, or copy semantics. the implementation is also fragile in subclass overrides.
some really brief examples follow; things obviously become more complex in real programs where implementations become considerably more complex.
1) the getter may not return the instance variable. one of several possibilities:
- (NSObject *)a { return [[a copy] autorelease]; }
2) the setter may not retain the instance variable. one of several possibilities:
- (void)setA:(NSObject *)arg
{
...
a = [arg copy];
...
}
3) you end up with memory management implementation throughout your program, which makes it difficult to maintain. the semantics of the class (and how it handles instance variables' ref counting) should be kept to the class, and follow conventions for expected results:
- (void)stuff:(NSString *)arg
{
const bool TheRightWay = false;
if (TheRightWay) {
NSMutableString * string = [arg mutableCopy];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
[string release];
// - or -
NSMutableString * string = [[arg mutableCopy] autorelase];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
}
else {
NSMutableString * string = [arg mutableCopy];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
[self.a release];
}
}
failing to follow these simple rules makes your code hard to maintain and debug and painful to extend.
so the short of it is that you want to make your program easy to maintain. calling release directly on a property requires you to know a lot of context of the inner workings of the class; that's obviously bad and misses strong ideals of good OOD.
it also expects the authors/subclassers/clients to know exactly how the class deviates from convention, which is silly and time consuming when issues arise and you have to relearn all the inner details when issues arise (they will at some point).
those are some trivial examples of how calling release on the result of a property introduces problems. many real world problems are much subtler and difficult to locate.
Is there any way to avoid this kind of code when overwriting the default setter for a retain property?
-(void)setMasterViewController:(UIViewController *)newMaster {
[newMaster retain];
[masterViewController release];
masterViewController = newMaster;
// do custom stuff on set
}
Is there any way to access the default setter, something like:
-(void)setMasterViewController:(UIViewController *)newMaster {
[defaultSetMasterViewController:newMaster];
// do custom stuff
}
This would keep the code DRYer. The way I'm doing it currently, the fact that it's a retain property is mentioned twice.
CoreData generates primitive setters, but in general there's no such affordance. You may be able to replace custom setters with key-value observing in some cases, but the solution to your specific question is probably "use ARC" if you can limit support to 10.6+/4.3+. It will handle the retain/release stuff on your behalf.
Not really, because the setter has to perform the actual setting. You could try doing this using key-value observing if you want to keep the original setter.
However... Yes, if you're using ARC! If you have a #property (strong), then when you simply say masterViewController = newMaster ARC will use objc_storeStrong, which:
Performs the complete sequence for assigning to a __strong object of non-block type. Equivalent to the following code:
id objc_storeStrong(id *object, id value) {
value = [value retain];
id oldValue = *object;
*object = value;
[oldValue release];
return value;
}
Given the piece of code below where blueViewController is an iVar.
Question: Why not instantiate the iVar directly?
BlueViewController *blueController = [[BlueViewController alloc]initWithNibName:#"BlueView" bundle:nil];
self.blueViewController = blueController;
[blueController release];
It depends on where you are in your class. If you are in your init (and dealloc) method it is recommended to refer to the ivar directly to avoid any side effects in setter logic. Therefore in the init I would do
_blueViewController = [[BlueViewController alloc] initWithNibName:#"BlueView" bundle:nil];
But anywhere else I would do it how you have done it. Then if there is any custom logic in the getter/setter I know it will be run.
To eleborate on #Vladimar's point the synthesized setter for a retain will do some memory management similar to this:
- (void)setMyObject:(MyObject *)newMyObject
{
// If it's the same object we don't need to do anything
if (_myObject != newMyObject) {
[newMyObject retain];
[_myObject release];
_myObject = newMyObject;
}
}
It is much safer to let the getters/setters worry about all this logic any time you set your ivars.
You can initialise iVar directly, but the code you have also handles memory management for the previous blueViewController value. Accessing iVar directly you'll have to release previous value manually before assigning new one.
You can do it all on one line if you want. The important thing is to balance the +alloc with a -release or -autorelease. So, you can say:
self.blueViewController = [[[BlueViewController alloc] initWithNibName:#"BlueView" bundle:nil] autorelease];
That's fine, but some folks prefer to avoid -autorelease, and some folks just prefer simpler steps and/or shorter lines of code. Using an intermediate variable as you've done helps in that respect, and it doesn't cost anything.
It depends on whether the property is retain or not. Most object properties are retained; this is what a retain property looks like:
- (void)setBlueViewController:(BlueViewController *)bvc {
if (bvc != blueViewController) { // blueViewController is local ivar
[blueViewController release];
blueViewController = [bvc retain];
}
}
So what you're doing up there is creating a retain count of +2. When you init, that's a +1; the property then retains it, bumping it up to +2. Your dealloc releases it once, which brings it down to +1...and you've leaked that property. Because you are alloc/init-ing the variable, you don't want to use the setter; instead, assign it directly to the instance variable.
By instantiating it directly, it saves you the trouble of that other release—fewer lines of code means fewer errors. You might, for example, have typed retain by accident and not realized it until your program crashes because you retained a massive class...
Of course, as Caleb says you could autorelease, but that's effectively letting the object lie around in memory until the run loop is finished. It's much easier, and gives you more control, to just not worry about that. There's nothing wrong with assigning the alloc/init to the ivar; in fact, that's the best way to do it.
I'm declaring an NSString property in a class and objective-c is complaining that:
NSString no 'assign', 'retain', or 'copy' attribute is specified
It then casually lets me know that "assign is used instead".
Can someone explain to me the difference between assign, retain and copy in terms of normal C memory management functions?
I think it is drawing your attention to the fact that a assign is being used, as opposed to retain or copy. Since an NSString is an object, in a reference-counted environment (ie without Garbage Collection) this can be potentially "dangerous" (unless it is intentional by design).
However, the difference between assign, retain and copy are as follows:
assign: In your setter method for the property, there is a simple assignment of your instance variable to the new value, eg:
- (void)setString:(NSString*)newString
{
string = newString;
}
This can cause problems since Objective-C objects use reference counting, and therefore by not retaining the object, there is a chance that the string could be deallocated whilst you are still using it.
retain: this retains the new value in your setter method. For example:
- (void)setString:(NSString*)newString
{
[newString retain];
[string release];
string = newString;
}
This is safer, since you explicitly state that you want to maintain a reference of the object, and you must release it before it will be deallocated.
copy: this makes a copy of the string in your setter method:
- (void)setString:(NSString*)newString
{
if(string!=newString)
{
[string release];
string = [newString copy];
}
}
This is often used with strings, since making a copy of the original object ensures that it is not changed whilst you are using it.
Cocoa uses reference counting to manage memory. Objects with a reference count of 0 are deleted.
assign - does nothing to reference count simply points your variable to the data
retain - points your variable to data and adds 1 to reference count, data is guaranteed to be there while your variable is still alive
copy - makes a copy of data, points your variable at it and makes the retain count 1
More detail here, at Apple's own documentation.
assign - the ivar is set by doing a simple assignment. Implementation:
- (void) setFoo:(NSString *)newFoo {
foo = newFoo;
}
retain - the ivar is sent the retain message before doing the assignment. Implementation:
- (void) setFoo:(NSString *)newFoo {
if (foo != newFoo) {
[foo release];
foo = [newFoo retain];
}
}
copy - the ivar is sent the copy message before doing the assignment. Implementation:
- (void) setFoo:(NSString *)newFoo {
if (foo != newFoo) {
[foo release];
foo = [newFoo copy];
}
}