I'm trying to interface Lua with Objective-C, and I think string conversion with NSSelectorFromString() has too big an overhead because Lua has to copy all strings to internalize them (although I'm not sure about this).
So I'm trying to find more lightweight way to represent a selector in Lua.
An Objective-C selector is an abstracted type, but it's defined as a pointer to something:
typedef struct objc_selector *SEL;
So it looks safe to handle as a regular pointer, so I can pass it to Lua with lightuserdata. Is this fine?
I don't believe it is safe to handle it as a pointer (even a void pointer), because if this ever changes in a future implementation or a different implementation of the language. I didn't see a formal Objective-C spec that tells what is implementation defines, but often when opaque types like this are used it means that you shouldn't have to know details about the underlying type is. In fact, the struct is forward-declared so that you can't access any of its members.
The other problem you might run into is implementing equality comparisons: are selectors references to a pool of constants or is each selector mutable. Once again, implementation defined.
Using C strings as suggested above is probably your best bet; ruby manages to use symbols for selectors and doesn't have too much of a performance penalty. Since the strings are const, lua doesn't need to copy them, but probably does anyway to be safe. If you can find a way to not copy the strings you might not take that much of a performance hit.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
what is the point of pointers in objective language
I am confused as to when and why pointers are used in Obj-C code. I am new to Obj-C and have a good grounding in C++ from an intro course at my university.
NSDate *now = [NSDate date];
Why is a pointer used here (and what exactly is its purpose?), and not here...
NSUInteger arrayLength = [<some array> count];
I am much more comfortable with the second example, but the first is still puzzles me.
It's the wording of the typedefs of Apple which are confusing.
NSUInteger
is just a fancy typedef for unsigned int; therefore it's a scalar type and not an object; you don't need a pointer to it in general for such a simple use case.
However,
NSDate
is a Foundation class; it means that its instances are proper Objective-C objects. As you probably know, Objective-C is a fully dynamic language: no static instances of classes are permitted, so every object is essentially a pointer (well, rather the allocated memory behind the pointer). So when you work with Objective-C objects, you always need a pointer to them.
Well, there are a few fundamental differences between Objective-C and C++. In Objective-C, there is actually a "generic object" (type "id"), and you can pass objects around without worrying about classes.
One of the implementation details that makes this possible is that Objective-C doesn't have "static" objects; all objects are created through the equivalent of "new" and are accessed through a pointer (string literals might be different, but they are still of type "NSString*"). It's just the way it is in Objective-C; you simply cannot have an "NSString MyString".
Because of this, the whole "objects are just objects and the compiler doesn't actually what you're dealing with" is possible because all objects are just simple pointers -- they are all the same size. The compiler can pass them around without knowing what they are, you can store them in containers without the containers knowing what they are etc.
Objective-C and C++ may both be "object-oriented" extensions of C, but they are quite different nonetheless.
EDIT: you can write stuff like "NSString* MyString" so the compiler knows what kind of object it is dealing with, but that's just convenience: you can still put other objects into that pointer (and, in fact, since the "new" equivalent usually returns id, one of the more common mistakes that I make is to "new" a different class from what the pointer says)
On the positive side, the compiler will warn you if you assign e.g. an NSWindow* to MyString, and it will also warn you if you call "open" on MyString. However, this is just an added benefit from the compiler; you could just as well declare everything as "id", or cast away the warnings.
I read this question in stackoverflow.
The excerpt answer provided by bbum is below:
The problem isn't the assignment, it is much more likely that you
declared your instance variable to be BOOL *initialBroadcast;.
There is no reason to declare the instance variable to be a pointer
(at least not unless you really do need a C array of BOOLs).. Remove
the * from the declaration.
1.Is there anything wrong in using a pointer variable even when I do not have to maintain an array of BOOLs?
2.I think even if avoiding them a good practice, it is not specific to objective-C and applies to all programming languages which has pointers.
Please answer my questions.
1.Is there anything wrong in using a pointer variable even when I do not have to maintain an array of BOOLs?
It's not illegal to do so, but it is bad practice. Using a pointer variable requires that you manage that memory (allocate and free it), and there are whole classes of bugs that can occur as a result. If you forget to allocate the memory, or accidentally modify the pointer, your program could crash, or you could overwrite some other part of memory. If you forget to free the memory, you have a memory leak. None of these things can ever happen if you're just using a plain BOOL. In addition, you get no benefit from using a pointer here; you do a bunch of extra work, and get nothing in return.
2.I think even if avoiding them a good practice, it is not specific to objective-C and applies to all programming languages which has
pointers.
I don't know about "all programming languages which [have] pointers", but I would certainly say in any C-based language (C, C++, Objective-C), it's bad practice to use pointers to intrinsic types when a plain variable of that type will do. If you can avoid doing memory management, do so.
On a side note, it is good practice to listen to everything bbum says. Seriously.
In my previous question, I figured out that all Objective-C objects are declared as pointers. But in C and C++, pointers can be accessed from any function, global or not, and they seem unprotected.
How are they "protected" in Objective-C ?
ObjC does not police your use of pointers.
There is type checking at compile time, so if you have a pointer to an NSNumber, and use the variable that holds it to assign to an NSString, the compiler will issue a warning. However, this is easily overridden by casting the pointer, as shown below,
NSNumber *myNumberPtr = [NSNumber initWithInt:99];
NSString *myStringPtr = (NSString *) myNumberPtr;
In this case, the compiler is told to keep quiet, but accessing myStringPtr as a string would cause 'undefined results', hopefully something obvious like a crash, but possibly something more pernicious.
Similarly, I could declare,
NSString *notActuallyAString = 0x897996789; // assigned some random value
Then when notActuallyAString is accessed at runtime, it is highy likely to cause a bad access exception as the pointer is almost certainly not pointing to an NSString, and quite possibly isn't a valid memory address at all.
This makes C (and its associated languages) powerful for low-level programming (if you actually know the memory mapped address of some hardware register, you can assign them in this way, and access hardware), but brings pretty clear risks.
It gets worse, because you may have a valid pointer at some point in the execution, but the memory that the pointer references is freed off at some later point. Then if you (wrongly) access that pointer, you again may well get an exception as the memory is no longer valid for the purpose the code assumes. Writing (assigning) a via a pointer that pointers somewhere it shouldn't is a common cause of memory corruption, which can be a devil to diagnose. For this reason, it's good practice (aka defensive coding) to make sure pointers that you've finished with are assigned to nil, so if you reuse those pointers when you shouldn't, you should get a symptom that is more easy to diagnose than some random memory corruption.
You need a good understanding of pointers to program in objC, and I would recommend reading the timeless classic reference book, 'The C Programming Language' by Kernighan & Ritchie which explains the basics of pointers, you can then build your understanding on how pointers and memory allocation is used in ObjC and C++.
A pointer, per se, does not have any kind of protection.
You should take a look to some basics of OOP; members can be of three types: public, protected or private. This is what decides if you can access the member from outside the implementation of the class itself (not considering, of course, some kind of hacking like accessing private members modifying directly the bytes of the object. You must not, however, do something like this because it's strongly against the OO philosophy: if a member is private there is a reason, and forcing the access to it will not give you any guarantee that your code will work with future versions of the library or in other machines).
In Objective-C members are protected by default. That's what give the protection you are looking for.
In Objective-C, instance variables are not exposed by default. In Objective-C 2.0, they are exposed by properties using the #property and #synthesize syntax. (Prior to 2.0, solely by explicitly written getter/setter methods.)
That notwithstanding, it is possible to access instance variables directly using the pointer operator syntax, e.g. NSString *bar = Foo->_text; even when text is not exposed as a property.
Further, you can now declare instance variables in your implementation file, to avoid having them exposed in public header files. If you are writing framework code, this offers some 'protection' against access to ivars outside of the property accessors since they are no longer visible.
Maybe it's useful if calling a method that MyClass doesn't understand on a something typed MyClass is an error rather than a warning since it's probably either a mistake or going to cause mistakes in the future...
However, why is this error specific to ARC? ARC decides what it needs to retain/release/autorelease based on the cocoa memory management conventions, which would suggest that knowing the selector's name is enough. So it makes sense that there are problems with passing a SEL variable to performSelector:, as it's not known at compile-time whether the selector is an init/copy/new method or not. But why does seeing this in a class interface or not make any difference?
Am I missing something about how ARC works, or are the clang warnings just being a bit inconsistent?
ARC decides what it needs to retain/release/autorelease based on the cocoa memory management conventions, which would suggest that knowing the selector's name is enough.
This is just one way that ARC determines memory management. ARC can also determine memory management via attributes. For example, you can declare any typedef retainable using __attribute__((NSObject)) (never, ever do this, but it's legal). You can also use other attributes like __attribute((ns_returns_retained)) and several others to override naming conventions (these are things you might reasonably do if you couldn't fix the naming; but it's much better to fix the naming).
Now, imagine a case where you failed to include the header file that declares these attributes in some files but not others. Now, some compile units (.m files) memory manage it one way and some memory manage it another. Hijinks ensure. This is much, much worse than the situation without ARC, and the resulting bugs would be mindbending because some ARC code would do one thing and other ARC code would do something different.
So, yeah, don't do that. (Of course you should never ignore warnings in Objective-C anyway, but this is a particularly nasty situation.)
It's an ounce of prevention, I'd assume. Incidentally, it's not foolproof in larger systems because selectors do not need to match and matching is all based on the translation, so it could still blow up on you if you are not writing your program such that it introduces type safety. Something is better than nothing, though!
The compiler wants to know about parameters and return types, potentially annotations and out parameters. ObjC has defaults to fall back on, but it's a good source of multiple types of bugs as the compiler does more for you.
There are a number of reasons you should introduce type safety and turn up the warning levels. With ARC, there are even more. Regardless of whether it is truly necessary, it's a good direction for an objc compiler to move towards (IMHO). You might consider C99 safer than ObjC 2.0 in this regard ;)
If there really is a restriction for codegen, I'd like to hear it.
When ARC came to Objective-C, I did my best to read through the Objective-C Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) guide posted on the Clang project website to get a better hang of what it was about. What I found there (and no where else) was mention of using __attribute__ declarations to signify to ARC whether certain code autoreleases its return value, for instance (__attribute__((ns_returns_autoreleased))), or whether it 'consumes' a parameter (__attribute((ns_consumed)), and so on.
However, it seems that the guide gives very little word on the actual level of necessity these declarations hold. Excluding them seems to make no difference, neither when running the static analyzer nor when running the project itself. Do these even make a difference? Is there any advantage to labeling a method with __attribute__((objc_method_family(new)))? No article I've found on ARC makes mention of these specifiers at all; perhaps an ARC guru can give word on what these are used for.
(Personally, I include all relevant specifiers just in case, but find that they make code obfuscated and messy.)
These attributes are expressly for abnormal cases, such as:
A function or method parameter of retainable object pointer type may be marked as consumed, signifying that the callee expects to take ownership of a +1 retain count.
A function or method which returns a retainable object pointer type may be marked as returning a retained value, signifying that the caller expects to take ownership of a +1 retain count.
You don't normally do these things, so you don't normally use these attributes. With no attributes, the normal behavior—the NARC rule, or perhaps under ARC I should say CAN—is what the compiler implements and expects.
There are two reasons to use these attributes:
In order to violate the CAN rule; that is, to have a method not so named that returns a reference, or a method so named that doesn't. The attribute documents the violation in the method's prototype, and may even be necessary to implement it, if the implementation uses ARC.
Working with Core Foundation types, including Core Graphics types. These aren't ARCed, so you need to use the bridging attributes to aid conversion to and from “retainable object pointer” types.
That's not necessary in most of the cases, since LLVM & Clang knows ObjC naming conventions. So if you follow the standard naming conventions of Cocoa, LLVM automagically assumes the corresponding family/return memory policy to follow.
Namely, if you declare a method named initWith... it will automatically consider it as the "init" family of methods, no need to specify __attribute__((objc_method_family(init))), Clang automatically detect it; same for the new family, etc.
In fact, you only need to use the __attribute__ specifiers when Clang can't guess such cases, which in practice rarely occurs (in practice I never had to use it), or only if you don't respect naming conventions:
Quoting Clang Language Extensions Documentation:
Many methods in Objective-C have conventional meanings determined by their selectors. For the purposes of static analysis, it is sometimes useful to be able to mark a method as having a particular conventional meaning despite not having the right selector, or as not having the conventional meaning that its selector would suggest. For these use cases, we provide an attribute to specifically describe the method family that a method belongs to.
So as soon as you respect the naming conventions (which you should always do) you won't have anything do to.
You should definitely stick to naming conventions wherever possible.
It's clearer to read.
Attributes can introduce build errors if there is a conflict.
ARC semantics combined with attributes are relatively fragile.