myclass.m
- (id) init {
self = [super init];
if (self != nil) {
self.locationManager = [[[CLLocationManager alloc] init] autorelease];
self.locationManager.delegate = self; // send loc updates to myself
}
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc {
[locationManager release];
[super dealloc];
}
I use instrument to check leak. The leak always point to
self.locationManager = [[[CLLocationManager alloc] init] autorelease];
Why?
I use instrument to check leak. The
leak always point to
self.locationManager = [[[CLLocationManager alloc] init] autorelease];
Why?
Because that is the line of code where the allocation that is leaked occurred. Since you have balanced both implied retains in that code correctly (once here, once in -dealloc -- mmccomb's suggestion of direct assignment without autorelease is good, but won't fix the problem), the leak is elsewhere.
Specifically, the leak will be a retain that isn't balanced by a release. So, somewhere your are retaining the object and not releasing it.
Instruments can be used to show all retain/release events on any given object. Use that and look through the list of events related to your leaked object. There will be one more retain than release. Pair off the retains and releases. Whichever retain is left without a balanced release is the cause.
I wrote an article about using Heapshot analysis in Instruments to detect memory abuse. It includes discussion and screenshots showing the retain/release event inspector and will be applicable.
Try to avoid using the self. setter notation in init methods. When an object is being initialised there is no guarantee that it is in a consistent state. Change your implementation to directly set the ivar as follows...
locationManager = [[CLLocationManager alloc] init];
You no longer need the autorelease call which was previously accounting for the extra retain count brought about by invoking the setter. You do however need to release the object in your dealloc method (as you are already doing).
You can explicitly check the retain count in dealloc like so:
NSLog(#"locationManager retain count: %d", [locationManager retainCount]);
If it is more than 1, check where else you may be retaining it - like if you assign it to another retaining property (e.g. declared with retain keyword). You can add that NSLog call in other locations before and after you do something with locationManager and see where the retain count increases. Sometimes it may not be immediately obvious.
Another possibility: does the dealloc method even get called? Perhaps the whole "myclass" object is not properly released? (Although I suppose in that case you'd see a leak of type "myclass", too).
Related
I have a singleton object in my app:
+ (id)shared {
#synchronized(self) {
if (sharedDownloadFirstData == nil)
sharedDownloadFirstData = [[self alloc] init];
}
return sharedDownloadFirstData;
}
- (id) init {
if (self = [super init]) {
}
return self;
}
And I want to know if I need to realese it (I am not using ARC). To do that I am using:
[[DownloadFirstData shared] release];
Did I need to release this object? I have an array and other stuff in the object that I need to release.
In Objective-C, you should only ever call release on an object you own. This typically means an object you've created with alloc, init, copy or mutableCopy or otherwise called retain on. Here, the consumer of [DownloadFirstData shared] didn't call any of those functions and is not responsible for releasing it. You will see this any time you call [UIColor blackColor], for instance.
You may want to call retain on such an object, if you are crossing autorelease boundaries or are just not sure of the lifetime:
DownloadFirstData *local = [[DownloadFirstData shared] retain];
...
[local release];
In this case, you've taken ownership and are responsible for releasing.
But what about the definition of shared? When you define a method not using init..., you are typically responsible for leaving with a release count of 0, with something like [[self alloc] init] autorelease]. This is not the case for the singleton because your goal is for it to always exist and therefore always have a non-zero retain count. You make this happen simply by not releasing it after you create it.
there is no sense in having a singleton if you will release it.
Usually a singleton is created because you want the same object till the app ends.
At the end of your app life cycle all memory related to the app is freed.
Use a standard approach, if you need alloc release often.
if your singleton takes a lot of memory, you should consider to write it better.
anyway, [[DownloadFirstData shared] release]; will work.
I am new to iOS development.
I have property as follows,
#property(nonatomic,retain)NSMutableArray *dataArray;
I am doing the following, to alloc it
self.dataArray=[[NSMutable alloc]init];
In the dealloc I am doing the following
-(void)delloc{
[dataArray release];
[super dealloc];
}
But I am getting memory leak for my array initialization.However , it doesn't create the
leak when I don't use self. But I wonder is it a write approach to initialise the array
without using self. Any help is appreciated.
You're getting a leak because the dataArray property is declared with retain, which means that when you use self (thus you use the setter), your retain count goes up to 2 and you only release it once. On the other hand, if you only use the ivar, the retain count is 1 (because of alloc) and you release it once, which is fine. To avoid the memory leak in the first situation, autorelease it like this.
self.data = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init] autorelease];
That will balance the retain count. As for access, except for inside the dealloc method, try to use self (setter and getter)
You should read the memory management docs, first thing to start with when developing for Cocoa Touch.
Also, why don't you use ARC?
If you use the self. signature you are accessing to the object via automatically generated / custom getter/setter. The setter will tipically manage the memory and you don't need to do that.
If you don't use self you access directly to the object.
The code what you presented is leaking, because the default setter of the dataArray will retain to the array, what you set with self.dataArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
The correct usage is:
self.dataArray = [[[NSMutableArray alloc] init] autorelease];
or:
_dataArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
What's happening here is that alloc is adding one to the retain count of the new object. The property reference is also retaining the object. If you want to do it this way, you only want one of those. A common method is:
self.dataArray = [[[NSMutableArray alloc]init] autorelease];
However, better still is to use ARC as #c.cam108 suggested and avoid the whole problem.
I am doing my project in xcode 4.2 (Older Version). For my application, I just set the variables, arrays in dto class for using in entire app lifecycle. so I set with a property like this.
AppDTO(sub class of NSObject)
AppDTO.h
#property(nonatomic,retain)anotherAppDTO *aAppDTO;
#property(nonatomic,retain)NSMutableArray *array1;
#property(nonatomic,retain)NSMutableArray *array2;
#property(nonatomic,retain)NSString *string1,*string2,*string3;
AppDTO.m
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.aAppDTO = [[anotherAppDTO alloc]init];
self.array1 = [[NSMutableArray alloc]init];
self.array2 = [[NSMutableArray alloc]init];
self.string1 = #"Hello";
self.string2= #"Hai";
}
}
-(void)dealloc
{
if(array1 != nil)
{
[array1 release];
array1 = nil;
}
if(array2 != nil)
{
[array2 release];
array2 = nil;
}
[aAppDTO release];
aAppDTO = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
when I analyze my app in Xcode 4.3.2, I get memory warning in self.array1 and self.array2 (Potential leak on object allocated on line….), but when I change self.array1 to array1, warning goes away.
What is the reason for using self. do I need to use self if I set #property(nonatomic,retain) to variables(like array1,array2,string1,string2).
Also in dealloc method, I heard we don't want to use [self.array1 release], instead we can use [array1 release]. Is it Correct?
Do I need to release my string in dealloc method.
Also I am releasing aAppDTO in dealloc method. if I allocate some objects in anotherAppDTO class, will it release automatically when I call [aAppDTO release] method.
Can anyone clarify me.
Many Thanks,
Anish
You get the warning because when you write :
self.array1 = [[NSMutableArray alloc]init];
is the same as :
[self setArray1: [[NSMutableArray alloc]init]];
As you can notice you are not allocating the underlying array1 private variable, but you are calling the setter of the property that since it is declared as retain it retains the object once assigned, this means that when you eventually will assign another object the second time with the setter the first object will remain with a retain count of one until the application will be closed (since you don't have any reference to that object anymore ...) .
Take a look at this great article to understand better Manual Reference Counting in Objective-C .
when i analyze my app in Xcode 4.3.2, i get memory warning in self.array1 and self.array2 (Potential leak on object allocated on line….), but when i change self.array1 to array1, warning goes away.
the analyzer's right. the parameter is retained when set. as well, you should favor direct access in initialization and dealloc. so, you should just write array1 = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];, and be done.
What is the reason for using self. do i need to use self if i set #property(nonatomic,retain) to variables(like array1,array2,string1,string2).
those go through the accessor methods. if not in initialization or dealloc, you should favor going through the accessor methods because that is the common correct execution path for a fully constructed object.
Also in dealloc method, i heard we don't want to use [self.array1 release], instead we can use [array1 release]. Is it Correct?
correct.
Do i need to release my string in dealloc method.
yes.
Also I am releasing aAppDTO in dealloc method. if i allocate some objects in anotherAppDTO class, will it release automatically when i call [aAppDTO release] method.
when its reference count reaches 0, its dealloc will be called.
I think the others have answered your question.
I do want to draw your attention to Apple's excellent Advance Memory Management Programming Guide: Practical Memory Management, in which they walk through these sorts of scenarios. It's hard to take it all in on the first reading, but it really does cover this stuff. In answer to your question about the use of instance variables versus the accessor methods, I draw your attention to the section labeled to "Don't Use Accessor Methods in Initializer Methods and dealloc".
After I Analyzed my code, Xcode indicated a potential leak as shown below.
Is this something I should be concerned about?
In this code, the class that sets doublyLinkedList is the sole owner and continues to manage this object throughout program execution.
The reason you're getting the warning is because the new call returns a retained object, and then your setter is probably doing another retain on it (depends on whether it's synthesized or manually generated).
Also, I would recommend you use the standard alloc/init instead of new, so that the two-phase creation is obvious.
This is better:
if (self) {
DoublyLinkedList *dll = [[[DoublyLinkedList alloc] init] autorelease];
self.doublyLinkedList = dll;
}
or just
if (self) {
self.doublyLinkedList = [[[DoublyLinkedList alloc] init] autorelease];
}
You may wish to do this instead:
if (self) {
DoublyLinkedList *dll = [DoublyLinkedList new];
self.doublyLinkedList = dll;
[dll release];
}
In the header, declare doublyLinkedList a #property that is retained.
You have a "potential leak" because the Analyzer sees that you have allocated memory for a DoublyLinkedList instance (using new), put it into a local variable called dll, and not released that memory in the same scope.
Assuming that the doublyLinkedList member that you're setting happens to also be a property declared as retaining, you also have an actual leak, because you have over-retained the DoublyLinkedList that you create here.
The ownership rules say that you have one claim on this instance because you called new to create it. When you pass the instance to setDoublyLinkedList:, it is retained, and you then have two claims. When the init method ends, you only have one reference to the instance, through the ivar/property -- you've lost the local variable -- which means that you have more ownership claims than you have references. This is a good indication that you will have a leak.
To fix the leak, you need to relinquish one of your claims before the end of the init method. You can do this in one of two ways, using release as soon as the property is set:
DoublyLinkedList * dll = [DoublyLinkedList new];
[self setDoublyLinkedList:dll];
[dll release];
or autorelease:
[self setDoublyLinkedList:[[DoublyLinkedList new] autorelease]];
// Or equivalent procedures involving a temp variable
However, it should be noted that using setters in init may be problematic (see also Mike Ash's writeup on the topic), because accessors can -- potentially -- have side effects that depend on your object already being fully set up. There seem to be two camps on this issue, and it's probably best to read about it and come to your own conclusions, but you may find that it simplifies your initializer methods to assign to ivars rather than using properties:
if( self ){
doublyLinkedList = [DoublyLinkedList new];
}
This is completely correct in terms of memory management.
Finally, if DoublyLinkedList is a class whose code you have, you can also consider writing a convenience constructor, which will return a new, autoreleased instance for you. The convention in Cocoa is to simply name the method after the class, with standard method name casing, like so:
+ (id) doublyLinkedList {
return [[[self alloc] init] autorelease];
}
Note that this is a class method:
if( self ){
[self setDoublyLinkedList:[DoublyLinkedList doublyLinkedList]];
}
and see my answer to "Self-allocating objects" for an explanation of these constructors.
If you have a property called "doublyLinkedList" (assumption based on code given), and it is "retained," you can do the following:
if (self) {
DoublyLinkedList *dll = [[DoublyLinkedList alloc] init]
self.doublyLinkedList = dll;
[dll release];
}
Given the following property definition:
#property (nonatomic,retain) MyObject* foo;
does the following code cause a memory leak:
self.foo = [[MyObject alloc] init];
?
It looks like the alloc call increments the retain count on the object to 1, then the retain inside the property setter increases it to 1. But since the initial count is never decremented to 0, the object will stick around even when self is released. Is that analysis correct?
If so, it looks like I have two alternatives:
self.foo = [[[MyObject alloc] init] autorelease];
which is not recommended on the iPhone for performance reasons, or:
MyObject* x = [[MyObject alloc] init];
self.foo = x
[x release];
which is a bit cumbersome. Are there other alternatives?
Are there any alternatives?
No.
You are not going to be able write much of an iPhone application without using autorelease and the Cocoa Touch library uses them in many places. Understand what it's doing (adding the pointer to a list for removal on the next frame) and avoid using it in tight loops.
You can use class method on MyObject that does alloc/init/autorelease for you to clean it up.
+ (MyObject *)object {
return [[[MyObject alloc] init] autorelease];
}
self.foo = [MyObject object];
The easiest way to manage a retained property on the iPhone is the following (autorelease is not as bad as you think, at least for most uses):
-(id)init {
if (self = [super init]) {
self.someObject = [[[Object alloc] init] autorelease];
}
return self;
}
-(void)dealloc {
[someObject release];
[super dealloc];
}
The autorelease releases the reference to the floating instance which is assigned to self.object which retains its own reference, leaving you with the one reference you need (someObject). Then when the class is destroyed the only remaining reference is released, destroying the object.
As described in another answer, you can also create one or more "constructor" messages to create and autorelease the objects with optional parameters.
+(Object)object;
+(Object)objectWithCount:(int)count;
+(Object)objectFromFile:(NSString *)path;
One could define these as:
// No need to release o if fails because its already autoreleased
+(Object)objectFromFile:(NSString *)path {
Object *o = [[[Object alloc] init] autorelease];
if (![o loadFromFile:path]) {
return nil;
}
return o;
}
You are right, self.foo = [[MyObject alloc] init]; is leaking memory. Both alternatives are correct and can be used. Regarding the autorelease in such a statement: keep in mind that the object will released by the autorelease pool as soon as the current run loop ends, but it will most probably be retained a lot longer by self, so there is no issue with memory usage spikes here.