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.
Related
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".
According to the static analyzer if we have the following property:
#property (retain, nonatomic) SomeObject * object;
and then we assign the property like so:
self.object = [SomeObject alloc] init];
a leak occurs. This makes sense because the alloc init adds +1 to the retain count and then the retaining property also increments the retain count. What is the best solution here? typically I just add an autorelease like so:
self.object = [[SomeObject alloc] init] autorelease];
But sometimes this creates problems for me and I end up over releasing the object causing my app to crash. I don't have any specific examples right now but I remember I had to take out some autoreleases cause of the application crashing. Is there something I am missing here?
EDIT: I have a concrete example now of the issue I was running into.
NSMutableArray *newData = [NSMutableArray array];
//If this is true then we are showing all of the items in that level of hierarchy and do not need to show the summary button.
if (!(contextID.count >= 1 && [[contextID objectAtIndex:contextID.count - 1] isEqual:[NSNull null]]) && contextID.count != 0)
{
GeographyPickerItem * firstItem = [[GeographyPickerItem alloc] init];
firstItem.primaryString = [NSString stringWithString:#"Summary"];
firstItem.subString = [NSString stringWithString:#""];
firstItem.isSummaryItem = YES;
[newData addObject:firstItem];
[firstItem release]; //TODO: Figure out why this is causing EXC_BAD_ACCESS errors
}
self.hierData = newData;
The code above is in the init method of a viewcontroller. HierData is a retained property, which is released in the viewControllers dealloc method. GeographyPickerItem retains the two strings, primaryString and subString and releases them in its own dealloc method. My application crashes (sometimes) when the viewControllers are de-alloced following a pop off of a navigation controller. It crashes with a EXC_BAD_ACCESS signal in the dealloc method of GeographyPickerItem (either on [substring release] or [primaryString release]).
I don't understand why this is happening because I believe I am following proper memory management guidelines. If I comment out firstItem release everything is fine.
The autorelease method you mention is fine, as is the other common idiom of:
SomeObject *thing = [[SomeObject alloc] init];
self.object = thing;
[thing release];
If you end up overreleasing later on, that is your problem. This part, which you're apparently doing correctly, is not the problem.
SomeObject * new_object = [SomeObject alloc] init];
self.object = new_object;
[new_object release];
or use ARC
check the GeographyPickerItem, if the strings properties are assign (and change to retain), or check if you always initialize them (before release).
also remember the difference of manually allocating :
[[NSString alloc] initWith...]
You must release or autorelease.
[NSString stringWith...]
No need to release.
or use ARC like meggar said
Turns out the issue was simple, my dealloc method called super dealloc at the start of the method rather than at the end. You always have to release your instance variables before you call [super 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];
}
I have a class like this:
#interface MyCollection : NSObject {
NSMutableDictionary *data;
}
and in the implementation of it, I have a method to init it like this:
- (id) init {
if(self = [super init])
{
self.data = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init];
}
return self;
}
Now when I create a object of this class in my code like this:
MyCollection *c = [[MyCollection alloc] init];
... at which point the Leaks utility shows that I have a memory leak in the init function on the very line where I try to set up the instance variable. I am totally new to Objective C & Iphone and I can't just get what is going wrong here. I have read through the Memory Management Guide and all, but I think I'm missing something pretty serious here.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time already.
you are using self.data =. So there is most likely a property. And it most likely is a property which either copies or retains your object if you use it.
By calling
self.data = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init];
The retain count of the NSMutableDictionary increases because of the alloc, and if the property of data has a retain or copy statement you get another increase in retain count.
you could write data = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init]; or self.data = [NSMutableDictionary dictionary]. This would increase the retain count only one time.
And don't forget to release the object in dealloc.
You have to release the object in your dealloc method. That's why it's showing up as a leak.
to add to what fluchtpunkt mentioned you could try this instead:
- (id) init {
if(self = [super init])
{
self.data = [NSMutableDictionary dictionaryWithCapacity:0];
}
return self;
}
and in the dealloc
-(void)dealloc
{
self.data = nil;
}
I see weird situations with the Leaks utility as sometimes it reports old leaks, sometimes it doesn't report new ones, and so on. Also, from what I could collect with all your answers and opinion elsewhere on the web, people are divided on whether one should set a pointer to nil or not.
As of now, I have solved the situation with the following approach.
- (id) init {
if(self = [super init])
{
data = [[[NSMutableDictionary alloc] initWithCapacity:0];
}
return self;
}
-(void)dealloc
{
[data release];
}
Thanks everyone for contributing.
Are you creating the instance of "MyCollection" in the interface section?
If it has method scope try to release it in the same method after you are done with it.
I have some code that looks like the following:
NSMutableArray *bar = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithCapacity:0];
NSMutableDictionary *foo = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] initWithCapacity:0];
[foo setObject:[NSNull null] forKey:#"yay"];
[bar addObject:foo];
[foo release];
Instruments is showing that foo is leaking. I understand why that is happening. Foo's retain count when alloc'd is 1. Then when bar addObject's foo, the retain count goes to 2. Later when I release foo, it goes down back to 1. Still a leak. However, later on in my code, (in a separate method, which is why I think this might be shown as a leak)
[bar removeAllObjects];
Why is foo shown as leaking if I do removeAllObjects later on?
** NOTE **
I didn't include it in my original post, but bar is indeed being released in the classes dealloc method.
I think (and I think you hinted at this possibility as well) that Instruments is marking it as a potential leak, because it hasn't looked ahead far enough to see that bar will be responsible for removing/releasing all its objects in said separate method..
Given what you show, it is bar that never gets released. Calling [bar removeAllObjects] only removes the objects it contains. Instead, you should call [bar release] when you are done with bar. This will automatically release all of the objects that bar holds, plus release the bar object itself.
You state that you understand the memory management concepts, so perhaps you just didn't show bar being released in your example.
edit: I think craig has the right idea in his answer. One way to avoid the warning (maybe) would be to allocate bar in the class init method. I usually find it beneficial to maintain a symmetry between my init and dealloc methods when it comes to member variables, and this would be a good example:
- (id)init
{
if ((self = [super init]) == nil) { return nil; }
bar = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithCapacity:0];
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc
{
[bar release];
[super dealloc];
}
- (void)YourMethod
{
NSMutableDictionary *foo = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] initWithCapacity:0];
[foo setObject:[NSNull null] forKey:#"yay"];
[bar addObject:foo];
[foo release];
}
The NSMutableArray should be releasing it when removeAllObjects is called. You shouldn't need to release or add it to an autorelease pool.
From O'Reilly's chapeter on Memory Management:
When you add an object to a collection, it is retained. When you remove an object from a collection, it is released. Releasing a collection object (such as an NSArray) releases all objects stored in it as well.
Perhaps something else is going on in instruments?