I have an NSString that I've retained, and the only place I release it is in the dealloc method. For some reason, however, later in the program when I try to reference it (its length, specifically), I get a crash, saying [CFString length]:message sent to deallocated instance 0xff32c50.
I explicitly retain the string earlier in the program. Is there any reason why this would be happening? Any help is appreciated.
The string, entityParameter, is declared in the header, and defined later.
Here is some of the code:
entityParameter = [[EntitySearchWindow stringByEvaluatingJavaScriptFromString:#"f();"] retain];
The place where I'm getting the crash looks like this:
if([entityParameter length] != 0 && entityParameter != nil)
{
return;
}
I have an NSString that I've retained,
and the only place I release it is in
the dealloc method. For some reason,
however, later in the program when I
try to reference it (its length,
specifically), I get a crash, saying
[CFString length]:message sent to
deallocated instance 0xff32c50.
Obviously, it isn't retained, then.
If by "retained" you mean "assigned to a property", are you doing:
self.prop = [NSString ...];
Or:
prop = [NSString ...];
Because the former will retain (if the property is declared as retain) whereas the latter will not. Note that NSString properties should generally be declared copy, but that is orthogonal to the question).
If your code is as written:
entityParameter = [[EntitySearchWindow stringByEvaluatingJavaScriptFromString:#"f();"] retain];
And you really do only release it in dealloc, then make sure your containing object hasn't already been deallocated. That may be happening. Or it might be that you've leaked the string reference somewhere and spuriously deleted it without a retain.
Using Zombie detection in instruments with "track retain/release events" (or whatever it is called) should show you every last retain/release event on the object, including the one the blew up.
Related
I bet that I could find the answer of this question from reading similar threads here or by googling, but I would like "hear" it first hand so to speak because it's an anomaly in my understanding.
So here's the thing, I have some code which a previous employee wrote and I see a lot of a certain type of construct which looks rather odd to me and I just want to clarify what is "right and wrong".
For example
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
[wwanServiceId autorelease];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
Here wwanServiceIdis a NSString member of the class, and to me this seem like a strange way to do it. As far as I understand it would begin by putting an autorelease on the object, basically saying: "whenever this object seem to not be used, release it for me I don't really care" then the copy will up the retain count +1 on.... wwanServiceId? or newValue? I guess the first.
Then to make me all more confused let's just quickly run through the life-cycle of the wwanServiceId-string..
basically the value will be set if we receive a notification which then from the notification-handler method will call the above -setWwanServiceId: method. other than that it will only ever be accessed for reading, so we are safe to say that it will at any given point:
put autorelease on object
retain a new string copy
Then there is one more quirk to this and this is where I am getting rather suspicious, namely in the -dealloc method which looks like this:
- (void) dealloc {
[[self wwanServiceId] release];
[super dealloc];
}
So what happens there? it will afaik release the wwanServiceId and as I said the only time it's memory management is being touched (if I haven't missed anything but I feel pretty sure) is to put an autorelease and retain it.
So to summarize:
Is the idea here that he thought that since he always retain a new copy after putting autorelease he need to release it in the end.. or well it's the only thing I can think about. Or just felt it would be safe to do an extra release in the end just in case..?
Because as far as I understand it, if this setter is called one time it will put an autorelease (-1 in future), do a retain (+1) and when destructor is called it will do the "final release" (-1).
Any ideas or suggestions helping me understand (if in fact I am wrong and the memory handling is correct as is) would be appreciated.
You wrote:
Here wwanServiceIdis a NSString member of the class, and to me this seem like a strange way to do it. As far as I understand it would begin by putting an autorelease on the object, basically saying: "whenever this object seem to not be used, release it for me I don't really care" then the copy will up the retain count +1 on.... wwanServiceId? or newValue? I guess the first.
This seems to point to the source of your confusion. wwanServiceId is a variable which can contain a reference to an object of type NSString. Variables do not have reference counts only objects do.
The previous employee wrote:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
[wwanServiceId autorelease];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
The expression [wwanServiceId autorelease] means: read the reference stored in wwanServiceId and autorelease the object that reference refers to - let's call that object A. Important: This does not delete object A; it will be released as some later stage and if at that time there are no remaining references object A will be deleted.
The expression [newValue copy] means: read the reference stored in newValue, use that to locate the object (call it object B), make a copy of that object to produce a new object (call it object C), and return a reference to the new object. This new object is owned by the caller of copy, so there is no need to retain it.
Finally the assignment stores the reference to object C into wwanServiceId.
So there is a maximum of three distinct objects involved:
A: the original object referenced by wwanServiceId, this is autoreleased to remove the ownership of wwanServiceId.
B: the object referenced by newValue, this is left untouched
C: a newly created copy of B owned through wwanServiceId
Why "autorelease" in the code and "maximum of three distinct" above?
The method could be called with newValue referencing object A, e.g. as in:
[self setWwanServiceId:[self wwanServiceId]]
If this was to occur and (a) release was used instead of autorelease and (b) there was no other reference to object A then the release would delete object A and then when [newValue copy] was evaluated newValue would be referencing a deleted object... The use of autorelease in this case delays the deletion until after the copy.
So what the previous employee wrote is not in any way "wrong", but as some of the other answer suggest it may be an unusual style. Another way you see this written is:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue
{
NSString *oldValue = wwanServiceId;
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
[oldValue release];
}
which also ensures any deletion occurs after the copy.
HTH.
To be short and helpful:
This is wrong:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
[wwanServiceId autorelease];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
This is right:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
if (newValue != wwanServiceId) {
[wwanServiceId release];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
}
To explain in short:
[wwanServiceId autorelease]; is an unnecessary sent message, because autoreleasing an object will reduce the retain count at some unknown point in the future. And in the next line you are wwanServiceId = [newValue copy]; instantly setting the instance variable. So, in your memory you now have a to be autoreleased object and a new object. One of them is too much The new object is, where the pointer of your IVar is pointing to. The old one is swimming in your Memory Pool with probably no reference to it :-)
Autorelease as few as possible or use ARC.
Oh: And in the dealloc method, please do not send the message like this:
[[self wwanServiceId] release];
Better like this:
[wwanServiceId release];
as Apple recommends to work directly with instance methods in init and dealloc methods, instead of using getters and setters there.
Debug it and have a look.
[wwanServiceId autorelease];
wwanServiceId has an address. This statement does not change it. It does decrement the retain count of this object though.
Thats it.
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
This statement creates a new object. The new object is a copy of newValue. Compare the addresses of the objects and you will see, that the address inn wwanServiceId will vary from the address of newValue and it will vary from the address that wwanServiceId did have just before the statement was executed.
The retain, that is implicit in copy will affect wwanServiceId, but it affects the new object, that was just creaed with copy. It does not affect the wwanServiceId object which was autoreleased during the statement before.
At some point after the execution of setWwanServiceId had finished, the old and autoreleased object will dissappear. (Assuming that the retain count is 0 now. If it is >0 because it is still retained for other reasons or just for error, then it will remain and potentially cause a leak.)
Once you understood that you will not question any more what is happening in the dealloc method. wwanServiceId is released. Meaning its retain count is reduced by 1. In the event that it is 0 then it will be deallocated automatically.
You could even autorelease it there too. The diffrerence to autorelease is basically that an autoreleased object is still around and available while the current method is being executed. Its release comes into effect at some later point in time.
But there is no reason for autoreleasing the object in dealloc.
In the example given there is not even a good reason to autorelease the object in the setter setWwanServiceId. You may well release the object directly in both methods.
Assuming wwanServiceId is the private ivar mapped by the getter wwanServiceId and setter setWwanServiceId, I think it is not correct to autorelease the ivar in the setter.
I would have coded the following:
- (void) setWwanServiceId: (NSString *) newValue {
if (newValue != wwanServiceId) {
[wwanServiceId release];
wwanServiceId = [newValue copy];
}
}
What I mean is: it is not necessary to give ownership of your var to the autorelease pool (which it may be drained at the end of the application). Simply release the ivar. If someone is using it, no problem, it will have a strong reference to it. Otherwise it will be deallocated.
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 am trying to get the hang of retain / release. I get that they are a matched set. But I don't know when I have to retain references.
-(void)sampleMethod:(RandomClass *) obj {
[obj retain];
// Do stuff to object...
[obj release];
}
Is it necessary to retain (and thus release) obj?
I am worried about obj going away. Does it follow that you must (if) retain reference parameters as soon as possible in the function? What about the space of time between the functions call and the first instruction of the function?
Thanks!
Short answer; use ARC.
Joe's answer is more or less correct. Until it isn't.
In general, there is no need to retain arguments or return values from other methods. However, the resulting code only works by coincidence and convention, not by algorithmic analysis.
Consider:
NSString *foo = [aMutableArray objectAtIndex: 5];
[aMutableArray removeObjectAtindex: 5];
[someTextField setTextValue: foo];
BOOM!
Your code just crashed. Maybe (it won't crash if foo happens to be a constant string or happens to have been retained by something else or happens to have been retain/autoreleased somewhere else).
Technically, that should be:
NSString *foo = [aMutableArray objectAtIndex: 5];
[foo retain];
[aMutableArray removeObjectAtindex: 5];
[someTextField setTextValue: foo];
[foo release];
That is, foo should be retained the moment it comes into scope and released the moment it is no longer used in a scope. Or you could [[foo retain] autorelease];, but autorelease pressure can be a problem (it generally isn't, but it can be).
ARC does this kind of analysis and would ensure that foo is retained as shown above when necessary.
You do not have to worry about the object being passed going away so there is no need to retain it. Proper memory management* ensures that the object will live for the duration of your method because it will be within the same thread as the caller, therefore the autorelease pool for that thread should not be drained and the caller can not release the object until your method has returned. This even holds true with methods such as performSelectorInBackground because that will retain the argument.
*Proper memory management - This means each thread that uses auto released objects gets it own autorelease pool that is drained within the same context it is created and objects passed across threads are properly retained.
I've learned that in dealloc you do [object release]; but in viewDidUnload (in a UIViewController subclass) you do self.object = nil. What is really the difference because self.object = nil (we're assuming object is a (nonatomic, retain) property) retains nil (which does nothing) and then releases the old value and then the reference count is 0 right?
self.object = nil calls your setter, which will release the old value, set the member to nil, and possibly do other things (it's a method, so it could do anything). The "anything" part of that is potentially dangerous; see this question, for example.
[object release] releases the old value, but leaves the member as a now-dangling pointer, which is a good recipe for bugs. In dealloc it doesn't really matter, since the pointer itself is about to go away too, but in any other case it's a very bad idea to release a member without setting it to nil.
(As a sidenote, you should never assume that releasing an object gives it a reference count of 0. It releases your reference, but other objects may still have references to it.)
If you do object = nil without [object release], that might causes memory leaking. If you do [object release] without object = nil afterwards, object becomes dangling pointer as #Jim suggested. self.object = nil is a sugar for setter function call.
If you just release an object, then it will become freed object.
And if you try to perform any sort of operation on freed object then your app crashes. To avoid such accidents, it is always preferred "assign your object to nil after releasing it". Because we all know any operations performed on nil will not be executed :)
If you do [object release], and want to access the object the app simply crash.
If you do object = nil, and want to access the object nothing will perform.
The reason is in the [object release], you are attempted to free the object. so its dont have any pointer (no memoty).In the object = nil, you are attempted to assign the object with null pointer. so if u trying to access the object nothing will happen.
Generally we wrote the code as [object release]; object = nil; because if u access the object unexpectedly, the app wont crashed.
I understand that any init... method initializes a new object and that NSString stringWithString makes a copy of the parameter string as a new object. I also understand that being the objects' owner, I can control the release/deallocation of any objects that I allocate. What I don't understand is when would I use the stringWithString method since any local variable assigned that way would have it's memory "owned" by NSString instead of the local class.
The "Programming in Objective C" book by Kochan (1st ed) uses the following code (see pages 342-344) to explain that the initWithString is preferable to stringWithString because the AddressCard class would own the name variable contents. Also, I don't get any errors making repeated calls to the setName version with the stringWithString method. TIA!!
//header file has appropriate declarations but not included here:
#import "AddressCard.h"
#implementation AddressCard;
-(NSString *) name
{
return name;
}
//Recommended code:
-(void) setName: (NSString *) theName
{
[name release]
name = [[NSString alloc] initWthString: theName];
}
//Incorrect code according to Kochan:
-(void) setName: (NSString *) theName
{
[name release]
name = [NSString stringWthString: theName];
}
//rest of class implementation code snipped
#end
What I don't understand is when would I use the stringWithString method since any local variable assigned that way would have it's memory "owned" by NSString instead of the local class.
What? No.
The rules are simple:
Any object returned by alloc, copy, copyWithZone, or new has a retain count of 1.
retain increases the receiving object's retain count.
release decreases the receiving object's retain count.
autorelease tells the current autorelease pool to send the receiving object the release message “later”.
Any factory method that doesn't have “new” or “copy” in the name (e.g., stringWithString:) returns an object that it has autoreleased on your behalf.
Or, digested a bit:
Any method whose name contains copy, alloc, retain, or new returns an object that you own.
Any method that doesn't, returns an object that you don't own.
To own an object, retain it.
The incorrect implementation of setName: that you show is incorrect because it stores an autoreleased object in an instance variable, when you mean to own the object. You should retain it or, in this case, copy it. One way is to simply use alloc and initWithString:, as in the correct example you show; the other way would be copy.
The Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa explains everything. Every Cocoa or Cocoa Touch programmer should read or re-read it from time to time.
Actually, both setters are wrong. The 'incorrect' one is wrong for general memory management reasons (which are well-expounded elsewhere). The 'recommended' one is wrong for 2 reasons:
if (theName == name), then you're
likely to deallocate your object in
the first line, and then attempt to
use the deallocated object as a
parameter to -initWithString: on the
second line, resulting in undefined
behavior.
-initWithString: does not handle being passed nil gracefully.
The 'correct' (IMHO) method is:
-(void) setName: (NSString *) theName
{
if (theName == name) return; // if they're equal, no need to do anything further
[name release];
name = [theName copy]; // sets name to nil if theName is nil
}
For most objects you'll actually want to -retain instead of -copy on that third line, but for strings it's almost always better to copy.
The difference between initWithString and stringWithString is that stringWithString returns an auto-released pointer. This means that you don't need to release it specifically, since that will be taken care of next time that the auto-release pool cleans up any auto-released pointers.
initWithString, on the other hand, returns a pointer with a retain count of 1 - you do need to call release on that pointer, or else it would result in a memory leak.
See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/193288/what-is-the-cost-of-using-autorelease-in-cocoa for some reasons as why you should use auto-release vs release.
In the Incorrect code above, the next time name is referenced after setName is called, you'll get an exception error, since the object will have been released. You can use either the "Correct" code, or wrap your stringWithString call in an explicit retain call:
name = [[NSString stringWithString: theName] retain];
What I don't understand is when would I use the stringWithString method since any local variable assigned that way would have it's memory "owned" by NSString instead of the local class.
A string created with stringWithString: isn't owned by the NSString, it is owned by the NSAutoreleasePool (although multiple places can retain an object, making ownership shared).
With stringWithString:, the string will become invalid when the autorelease pool is next processed (normally during the application's next event loop) because the NSAutoreleasePool will release its pointer. If you have not retained the string before then, any pointer you have to it (name in the case of your class) will be invalid (the variable name will still exist but it will point to garbage).
Autorelease is good, if you don't intend to keep any pointers to the NSString but since you do intend to keep a pointer, you'll need to retain the NSString. initWithString: gives you a retain count of 1 automatically.