I have a method of an object which creates objects which are then passed to a method of another object in another thread, like this:
MyClass* myClass = [[MyClass alloc] init];
[anotherClass performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(method) withObject:myClass waitUntilDone:NO];
in method, I immediately retain the object, supposing it will be somehow released by the creator. My question is: how do I make MyClass release that object correctly? Is this the correct way to go?
My solution was to release the object manually in method. I see anyway that the Leak analyzer still recognizes this as a leak and seems it is not what Apple recommends, as the owner has the responsability to release the object.
Can you explain me the correct way to handle this situation? Thanks!
I don't fully understand what you're trying to achieve, but in general:
You shouldn't worry about who and when releases/deallocates the object. Instead, just make sure to retain it when you (a single object or method of yours) start needing it and release it when you stop needing it (or autorelease it, in which case it will be released on the thread on which you called autorelease).
This is exactly the way the performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: works. From the documentation:
This method retains the receiver and the arg parameter until after the selector is performed.
It retains them while it needs them for doing it's job.
In short, the mehod that creates the objects and sends them to another thread should be:
MyClass* myClass = [[MyClass alloc] init]; // retained, will need it for performSelector
[anotherClass performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(method) withObject:myClass waitUntilDone:NO];
[myClass release]; // no longer needing it.
or
MyClass* myClass = [[[MyClass alloc] init] autorelease]; // will be released automatically, but guaranteed to be retained until this method returns
[anotherClass performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(method) withObject:myClass waitUntilDone:NO];
The way you have it now is a memory leak.
The receiving method:
if it uses the object only internally, doesn't have to retain it, since performSelector does "until after it is performed" (the method returns).
if it needs it later, it should be assigned to a property which retains it.
Your question is very hard to understand because you talk about this object, that object, another object and use meaningless names like myClass, anotherClass and method. It remains unclear which object you intend to release and which one is reported as leaking.
Anyhow, multi-threading doesn't add any special complexity to reference counting. Certainly, your two object myClass and anotherClass aren't short-lived objects. So if you use autorelease, make sure that the reference counter doesn't go to 0 if all autoreleases have been executed.
It's perfectly okay to release either myClass or anotherClass or both in method.
You don't show a lot of code. But what you show is okay.
Related
This might be a stupid question, but it keeps bothering me.
Say if we have a method that takes an NSString object as its parameter and does something with the NSString object,
- (void)someMethod:(NSString *)str
{
//do something with str
}
Consider this code
[someObject someMethod:[[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"Hello World!"]];
Since alloc has been used in creating the string as parameter of someMethod, it has to be balanced by release no matter explicitly in pre-ARC environment or implicitly under ARC. But it seems there is no way we can get a pointer to the string as we have never assigned it to any pointer.
So my question is, first, is this way of passing parameter prohibited in writing objective c code? If no, then how objects created this way get released? And finally, does this code lead to memory leak?
Just for the record, I understand the above code is written
NSString *string = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"Hello World!"];
[someObject someMethod:string];
// [string release]; depending on ARC or non-ARC
Well, in fact, that object is assigned to the variable named str, which is a parameter of your method. You can manage the memory inside your method via that pointer, although methods aren't supposed to take ownership of their arguments (except see below).
ARC knows what to do in this situation -- it will either autorelease the object or add a release once the method is finished.
Under MRR, your snippet would be a leak; the correct way to avoid that is also to send autorelease:
[someObject someMethod:[[[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"Hello World!"] autorelease]];
or to use your last snippet (putting the string into a temporary variable and releasing later).
As a slightly esoteric option, it is possible for your method to declare that it owns the argument, by using the ns_consumed attribute:
- (void)someMethod:(NSString *) __attribute__((ns_consumed)) str;
This indicates that your method should send release to the object before it returns -- ARC will also take care of that.
So my question is, first, is this way of passing parameter prohibited in writing objective c code?
No. It's perfectly legal.
If no, then how objects created this way get released?
ARC will take care of it for you. If you do your own reference counting, then you can add it to the autorelease pool before it goes out of scope:
[someObject someMethod:
[[[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:#"Hello World!"] autorelease]];
^^^^^^^^^^^
And finally, does this code lead to memory leak?
Not in ARC. In MRC, you would need to add the -autorelease.
The static analyzer would also point out that leak.
There's no reason to not write code as you ask for consideration on… nothing prohibited in the slightest. These objects get released in the same manner that any other object gets released. Your lack of a variable to store the pointer in at the top level isn't important because the Objective C runtime knows about the object.
After transitioning a project to ARC, I've been having some issues with delegate methods not being called/being called on deallocated instances. I've realized that the problem is that I have a variable that gets allocated and then executes an asynchronous task. For a simple example, assume that there is an object called MyService that responds to a delegate method, executeDidSucceed:
- (void)fireRequest {
MyService *service = [[MyService alloc] initWithDelegate:self];
[service execute];
}
The original code would look something like this:
- (void)fireRequest {
MyService *service = [[[MyService alloc] initWithDelegate:self] autorelease];
[service execute];
}
With ARC, I understand that a release call gets added after [service execute] gets called. And I also understand that because the method is asynchronous, the service object will get deallocated, and a call to the deallocated object will be made for the delegate method.
I know a solution would be to make service an instance variable and give it the strong property so we can retain ownership of it. And I know of a solution where we could create a block and use a completion handler so the delegate stays retained until the block is completed. My question is, what's the best way of handling a situation like this? Or more so, what's the "best practice" for resolving this while transitioning to ARC?
You will need to make your Myservice object a member to this class. ARC is cleaning it up as soon as this function completes because you no longer have a reference to it.
It's also my opinion that its a good practice to do since you don't have a reference to that object until it calls a delegate (if it does) and depending on the situation you may need stop the service before it completes.
I might've jumped into Objective-C a little too fast and assumed I knew enough about memory management to dive in. Turns out I wasn't.
Fast forward a bit and I've caught up ... for the most part. One of my last remaining questions regards the #property/#synthesize process and setting those values properly.
I've often seen this:
SomeObject *obj = [[SomeObject alloc] init];
self.obj = obj;
[obj release];
It makes sense, but I wonder if this accomplishes a similar enough thing to be an alternative:
self.obj = [[[SomeObject alloc] init] autorelease];
Would that be acceptable anywhere you might set the value of the #property, obj? Or is direct access to the instance variable preferred over both of those in the init method?
obj = [[SomeObject alloc] init];
Thanks.
EDIT: Definitely related question that discusses half of my question. The autorelease part of my question is referenced in one of the answers, but has not been confirmed.
So my questions still remain:
Is autorelease a valid alternative in this situation?
Can autorelease be used this way in the init method, or should the instance variable always be set directly in the init method?
The only difference is that in your first example, obj is released immediately (although it was presumably retained by the self.obj setter). The two examples are effectively the same.
Note that going forward, we can rely on ARC to deal with releasing objects at the appropriate time, so you can write:
self.obj = [[SomeObject alloc] init];
and let ARC worry about where to put the release or autorelease.
Update: You seem to be asking how things are different inside an -init method. The two things you need to be aware of are:
When possible, you should access ivars directly in -init and -dealloc methods. The idea is to avoid problems that could occur if your accessors are overridden by a subclass. There are a number of other questions here on SO that address this in greater depth, such as:
Why shouldn't I use Objective C 2.0 accessors in init/dealloc?
If you're creating an object in an -init method and assigning it to an ivar, you probably don't want to release it until a later point, such as -dealloc. So yes, it's fine in an -init method to not release the objects you create (so long as you keep a reference to them), but you'll still balance that +alloc with a -release in -dealloc.
We know about the complete pattern of alloc/init that alloc and init must be combined.
NSObject *myObj = [[NSObject alloc] init];
1- init method receives the object from another source(not from a alloc,new,copy or alike or retained) so according to the fundamental memory management rule its not the owner and it must not release it. However, "Allocating and Initializing Objects / The Returned Object" article says that init could free the receiver.
How could this be possible when its against the fundamental rule?
2- Also, from the same article, init could return another object or nil. So, in this case, when we use the complete pattern of alloc/init, we could not release the object returned by alloc but we could only release the object returned from init and, init releases the object it received from alloc instead of us.
But init is not a alloc,new,copy or alike method so we must not release the object returned from it as it does not give us the ownership of object.
How could we release the object returned from init although this is against the fundamental rule?
3- Or, to adhere to the last paragraph of the same article, must we accept init method as a special case and use alloc/init pattern as an exception to the fundamental rule?
Memory Management Fundamental Rule:
You only release or autorelease objects you own.
You take ownership of an object if you create it using a method whose name begins with “alloc” or “new” or contains “copy” (for example, alloc, newObject, or mutableCopy), or if you send it a retain message.
You use release or autorelease to relinquish ownership of an object. autorelease just means “send a release message in the future” (to understand when this will be, see “Autorelease Pools”).
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/MemoryMgmt/Articles/mmRules.html
Allocating and Initializing Objects / The Returned Object:
However, in some cases, this responsibility can mean returning a different object than the receiver. For example, if a class keeps a list of named objects, it might provide an initWithName: method to initialize new instances. If there can be no more than one object per name, initWithName: might refuse to assign the same name to two objects. When asked to assign a new instance a name that’s already being used by another object, it might free the newly allocated instance and return the other object—thus ensuring the uniqueness of the name while at the same time providing what was asked for, an instance with the requested name.
In a few cases, it might be impossible for an init... method to do what it’s asked to do. For example, an initFromFile: method might get the data it needs from a file passed as an argument. If the file name it’s passed doesn’t correspond to an actual file, it won’t be able to complete the initialization. In such a case, the init... method could free the receiver and return nil, indicating that the requested object can’t be created.
Because an init... method might return an object other than the newly allocated receiver, or even return nil, it’s important that programs use the value returned by the initialization method, not just that returned by alloc or allocWithZone:. The following code is very dangerous, since it ignores the return of init.
id anObject = [SomeClass alloc];
[anObject init];
[anObject someOtherMessage];
Instead, to safely initialize an object, you should combine allocation and initialization messages in one line of code.
id anObject = [[SomeClass alloc] init];
[anObject someOtherMessage];
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/Articles/ocAllocInit.html
The init method doesn't receive the object; the object receives the init message. The object does not possess itself; rather, it always knows about itself (through the implicit self argument in every message).
You're right that the object does not own itself, though. If alloc and init were fused in a single new method, that method would be its own (super) caller, so it would own the object (until it returns) and so be unquestionably right in releasing it. Since they are separate, and init is not the caller of alloc, you're right that it does not own the object, so you are right to question this practice.
This is one of the few cases where it's OK for one object to release an object (in this case, itself) on behalf of another. The alternative is not to release it, which, if you're going to either return nil or throw an exception, will be a leak.
In general, anytime you have an object retain or release itself, you should feel dirty. In this specific case, it's OK, because you are preventing a bug (a leak) rather than probably creating one.
2- Also, from the same article, init could return another object or nil. So, in this case, when we use the complete pattern of alloc/init, we could not release the object returned by alloc but we could only release the object returned from init and, init releases the object it received from alloc instead of us.
But init is not a alloc,new,copy or alike method so we must not release the object returned from it as it does not give us the ownership of object.
As init releases the old object on behalf of its caller, if it creates a new object, it does that on behalf of its caller. The caller does own the substitute object that init creates or retrieves for it.
As a corollary to this, if init retrieves a previously existing object, it must retain that, so that the caller will own it.
Again examining the hypothetical* new method, it would also need to both release the old object and create (owningly) or retain the substitute.
In all of these cases, it's init acting on behalf of its caller. It's normally dodgy for one method to do another's memory management, but for these cases, init doing it on behalf of its caller is necessary.
*The new method does exist, but simply sends alloc and init, so there's no need to implement it separately.
If initialization fails for some reason and must return null, then you must release the object in order to avoid leaking memory.
Similarly, init may decide to swap in a different object and return it - in that case you must also release the object in order to avoid leaking memory.
In both cases it's necessary because the original object isn't being returned by init, and will be orphaned after the method returns. Alloc has automatically retained the object, so if you don't release it its retain count will be stuck at 1 forever.
[Would another perspective help?]
The init method (and its siblings initWith... and similar) is a bit of an odd case but is not a special case of memory allocation rules. Init is odd because it has a name that sounds like it is going to change the internals of the instance but in fact it may do more than that (it may substitute some other object and initialize that object, for example). The tip-off is in the declaration of init:
- (id) init // the way it is
vs
- (void) init // in some other universe
The init method returns an object, so it might have been better named something like 'return an object that is (class-wise) an equivalent object and that has been initialized'. Most methods do not perform this kind of switcheroo, which makes init a bit different/odd.
There is nothing 'magic' about the alloc / init nesting -- it's just the simplest way to handle the fact that the object that you get back from alloc may not be the same object you get back from init. This works perfectly fine:
NSSomeClass* s = [NSSomeClass alloc];
s = [s init]; // that 's =' part is really important ;-)
and is exactly equivalent to the 'standard' idiom:
NSSomeClass* s = [[NSSomeClass alloc] init];
This is potentially problematic:
NSSomeClass* s = [NSSomeClass alloc]
[s init]; // bad! you ignored the result of init
The implementation of an init method must be done particularly carefully when the implementation returns a different object than the one it receives as the incoming 'self'. In such a case the init method takes on the responsibility of memory management of the 'self' object (because it's not going to return that object - so who else could be expected to do the management?)
It's possible to do some pretty ugly trickery, BTW. Don't try this at home!
// don't do this!
S* s = [S alloc]
[s retain]; // needs to survive 2 init's
S* ss = [s init......]; // s.retain goes 2-->1
S* sss = [s init.....]; // ... goes 1-->0;
Doing this is extremely poor practice because it depends on the init..... method always returning a new object (instead of the one it receives). That's an obviously bad assumption!
NOTE that by "a method receiving an object in 'self'" I mean that the method was invoked upon/by an object, and that object is made available by convention through the 'self' pointer.
The fundamental rule just doesn't apply in this special situation.
In fact, don't worry about it - unless you plan to do Posing, you won't need to write code that does this, and it will have no impact at all on the code you write.
You should continue to follow the fundamental rule in all your code.
And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
(Captain Barbosa)
alloc/init is a bit of a special case. You have to do the retain/release stuff inside init in such a way that whatever object the caller gets back is owned by the caller and there are no leaks.
I am still new to this Memory Management stuff (Garbage Collector took care of everything in Java), but as far as I understand if you allocate memory for an object then you have to release that memory back to the computer as soon as you are finished with your object.
myObject = [Object alloc];
and
[myObject release];
Right now I just have 3 parts in my Objective-C .m file: #Interface, #Implementation and main. I released my object at the end of the program next to these guys:
[pool drain];
return 0;
But what if this program were to be a lot more complicated, would it be okay to release myObject at the end of the program?
I guess a better question would be when do I release an object's allocated memory? How do I know where to place [myObject release];?
This is probably a little over-simplified, but in general, you are going to want to release it where you declared it.
If you declare an object INSIDE a particular method call, then by definition, you will be done with that object (or at least that handle to that object) at the end of that method call... release it then.
If you declare an object as an instance variable, then by definition you will be done with it when that instance is destroyed... release it in the dealloc method of that class.
Keep in mind that "release" does not equal "destroy." When passing objects around in your application, it may make sense to have more than one handle to that object stored in different places... in that case "release" means "I'm done with this object, but someone else may still be using it." Deallocation only occurs when the number of "handles" (retain count) reaches zero.
Apple has some fantastic documentation on memory management, I would check it out at developer.apple.com.
You essentially have three kinds of objects, each with a different pattern.
Transients Objects
In general, you should autorelease transient objects. These are objects that are allocated locally and do not need to exist beyond the method in which they are called. Or they are passed around from method to method.
Chain of Ownership
When one object exists as an instance field inside another, you should release the "owned" (or "child") object when the "owner" (or "parent") object goes out of existence. This is done in the dealloc method of the parent object:
- (void) dealloc {
[child release]; // child was declared as an instance variable
[super dealloc];
}
Lifetime of the Program
When an object is intended to exist for the lifetime of the program, it usually isn't necessary to call release at all, unless some kind of resource cleanup needs to occur. You can put this in applicationWillTerminate:, which you can look up in Apple's documentation.
(You should probably avoid having such objects, but that is a discussion for another question.)
You have to think in terms of ownership. When you take ownership of an object by calling alloc, new or retain, you're also responsible for releasing it, either by calling autorelease when you return an owned object to the caller, or by calling release.
A general rule is:
Local variable: release it within the same method. When you want to return it to the caller, use autorelease
Class member: release it in the dealloc method