Memory (and resource) leaks happen. How do you make sure they don't?
What tips & techniques would you suggest to help avoid creating memory leaks in first place?
Once you have an application that is leaking how do you track down the source of leaks?
(Oh and please avoid the "just use GC" answer. Until the iPhone supports GC this isn't a valid answer, and even then - it is possible to leak resources and memory on GC)
In XCode 4.5, use the built in Static Analyzer.
In versions of XCode prior to 3.3, you might have to download the static analyzer. These links show you how:
Use the LLVM/Clang Static Analyzer
To avoid creating memory leaks in the first place, use the Clang Static Analyzer to -- unsurprisingly -- analyse your C and Objective-C code (no C++ yet) on Mac OS X 10.5. It's trivial to install and use:
Download the latest version from this page.
From the command-line, cd to your project directory.
Execute scan-build -k -V xcodebuild.
(There are some additional constraints etc., in particular you should analyze a project in its "Debug" configuration -- see http://clang.llvm.org/StaticAnalysisUsage.html for details -- the but that's more-or-less what it boils down to.)
The analyser then produces a set of web pages for you that shows likely memory management and other basic problems that the compiler is unable to detect.
If your project does not target Mac OS X desktop, there are a couple of other details:
Set the Base SDK for All Configurations to an SDK that uses the Mac OS X desktop frameworks...
Set the Command Line Build to use the Debug configuration.
(This is largely the same answer as to this question.)
Don't overthink memory management
For some reason, many developers (especially early on) make memory management more difficult for themselves than it ever need be, frequently by overthinking the problem or imagining it to be more complicated than it is.
The fundamental rules are very simple. You should concentrate just on following those. Don't worry about what other objects might do, or what the retain count is of your object. Trust that everyone else is abiding by the same contract and it will all Just Work.
In particular, I'll reiterate the point about not worrying about the retain count of your objects. The retain count itself may be misleading for various reasons. If you find yourself logging the retain count of an object, you're almost certainly heading down the wrong path. Step back and ask yourself, are you following the fundamental rules?
Always use accessor methods; declare accessors using properties
You make life much simpler for yourself if you always use accessor methods to assign values to instance variables (except in init* and dealloc methods). Apart from ensuring that any side-effects (such as KVO change notifications) are properly triggered, it makes it much less likely that you'll suffer a copy-and-paste or some other logic error than if you sprinkle your code with retains and releases.
When declaring accessors, you should always use the Objective-C 2 properties feature. The property declarations make the memory management semantics of the accessors explicit. They also provide an easy way for you to cross-check with your dealloc method to make sure that you have released all the properties you declared as retain or copy.
The Instruments Leaks tool is pretty good at finding a certain class of memory leak. Just use "Start with Performance Tool" / "Leaks" menu item to automatically run your application through this tool. Works for Mac OS X and iPhone (simulator or device).
The Leaks tool helps you find sources of leaks, but doesn't help so much tracking down the where the leaked memory is being retained.
Follow the rules for retaining and releasing (or use Garbage Collection). They're summarized here.
Use Instruments to track down leaks. You can run an application under Instruments by using Build > Start With Performance Tool in Xcode.
I remember using a tool by Omni a while back when I was trying to track down some memory leaks that would show all retain/release/autorelease calls on an object. I think it showed stack traces for the allocation as well as all retains and releases on the object.
http://www.omnigroup.com/developer/omniobjectmeter/
First of all, it's vitally important that your use of [ ] and { } brackets and braces match the universal standard. OK, just kiddin'.
When looking at leaks, you can assume that the leak is due to a problem in your code but that's not 100% of the fault. In some cases, there may be something happening in Apple's (gasp!) code that is at fault. And it may be something that's hard to find, because it doesn't show up as cocoa objects being allocated. I've reported leak bugs to Apple in the past.
Leaks are sometimes hard to find because the clues you find (e.g. hundreds of strings leaked) may happen not because those objects directly responsible for the strings are leaking, but because something is leaking that object. Often you have to dig through the leaves and branches of a leaking 'tree' in order to find the 'root' of the problem.
Prevention: One of my main rules is to really, really, really avoid ever allocating an object without just autoreleasing it right there on the spot. Anywhere that you alloc/init an object and then release it later on down in the block of code is an opportunity for you to make a mistake. Either you forget to release it, or you throw an exception so that the release never gets called, or you put a 'return' statement for early exit somewhere in the method (something I try to avoid also).
You can build the beta port of Valgrind from here: http://www.sealiesoftware.com/valgrind/
It's far more useful than any static analysis, but doesn't have any special Cocoa support yet that I know of.
Obviously you need to understand the basic memory management concepts to begin with. But in terms of chasing down leaks, I highly recommend reading this tutorial on using the Leaks mode in Instruments.
Related
I'm reading a book on Objective C, and I was wondering about 2 things:
1.Should I take the time currently to read a whole chapter on memory management since we mostly use ARC?(only asking this question to make sure im managing time properly)
2.If you are doing a really good job on manual management, can you get to better performance than using ARC? (like that your app will work faster)
tnx
You should at least familiarize yourself with the basic concepts of the manual memory management, because ARC uses it under the hood. You need to learn at least about three things: retain, release, and autorelease. This will help you understand discussions about ARC's inner working.
ARC is mostly a compiler trick (with some support from the runtime). You can write less code, but you cannot get better performance from it. Essentially, ARC lets you deal with memory management declaratively, while the manual management uses imperative style. However, both systems call the same methods from the runtime.
1、Of course you should.ARC is based on the same memory management,just let the compiler do the same work.If you want to master a kind of technology，try to know how does it work is a faster way.
2、Actually,they do the same performance.Just let the compiler do what did you do before.For when you retain an object(which is a property) in the class, we always release in the dealloc.you alloc an object in a method,assign to local pointer,it will be release when the stack memory of this method clean up;if you retain it in the method to the method's local variable you release it in the same place.Then you will be find they are all predictable.why not let the machine do it?
I have read Apple's memory management guide, and think I understand the practices that should be followed to ensure proper memory management in my application.
At present it looks like there are no memory leaks in my code. But as my code grows more complex, I wonder whether there is any particular pattern I should follow to keep track of allocations and deallocations of objects.
Does it make sense to create some kind of global object that is present throughout the execution of the application which contains a count of the number of active objects of a type? Each object could increment the count of their type in their init method, and decrement it in dealloc. The global object could verify at appropriate times if the count of a particular type is zero of not.
EDIT: I am aware of how to use the leaks too, as well as how to analyze the project using Xcode. The reason for this post is to keep track of cases which may not be detected through leaks or analyze easily.
EDIT: Also, it seems to make sense to have something like this so that leaks can be detected in builds early by running unit tests that check the global object. I guess that as an inexperienced objective-c programmer I would benefit from the views of others on this.
Each object could increment the count of their type in their init
method, and decrement it in dealloc.
To do that right, you'll have to do one of the following: 1) override behavior at some common point, such as NSObject's -init or , or 2) add the appropriate code to the designated initializer of every single class. Neither seems simple.
The global object could verify at appropriate times if the count of a
particular type is zero of not.
Sounds good, but can you elaborate a bit on "appropriate times"? How would you know at any given point in the life of your program which classes should have zero instances? You'd have a pretty good idea that there should be no objects at the end of the program, but Instruments could tell you the same thing in that case.
Objective-C has taken several steps to make memory management much simpler. Use properties and synthesized accessors where you can, as they essentially manage your objects for you. A more recent improvement is ARC, which goes even further toward automating most memory management tasks. You basically let the compiler figure out where to put the memory management calls -- it's like garbage collection without the garbage collector. Learn to use those tools well before you try to invent new ones.
Don't go that route... it's a pain in single inheritance. Most importantly, there are excellent tools at your disposal which you should master before thinking you must create some global counter. The global counter exists in a few tools already -- Learn them!
The way you combat it is to learn how to balance and manage everything correctly when it's written. It's really very simple in hindsight.
ARC is another option -- really that just postpones your understanding.
The first "design pattern" I recommend it to use release instead of autorelease where possible (although generally more useful for over-releases).
Next, run the leaks instrument/util regularly and fix all leaks/zombies immediately.
Third, learn the existing tools as you go! These tools can do really crazy stuff, like record the backtrace of every allocation and every reference count. You can pause your program's execution and view what allocations exist, alloc counts, backtraces, and all sorts of other stats.
Can someone briefly explain to me how ARC works? I know it's different from Garbage Collection, but I was just wondering exactly how it worked.
Also, if ARC does what GC does without hindering performance, then why does Java use GC? Why doesn't it use ARC as well?
Every new developer who comes to Objective-C has to learn the rigid rules of when to retain, release, and autorelease objects. These rules even specify naming conventions that imply the retain count of objects returned from methods. Memory management in Objective-C becomes second nature once you take these rules to heart and apply them consistently, but even the most experienced Cocoa developers slip up from time to time.
With the Clang Static Analyzer, the LLVM developers realized that these rules were reliable enough that they could build a tool to point out memory leaks and overreleases within the paths that your code takes.
Automatic reference counting (ARC) is the next logical step. If the compiler can recognize where you should be retaining and releasing objects, why not have it insert that code for you? Rigid, repetitive tasks are what compilers and their brethren are great at. Humans forget things and make mistakes, but computers are much more consistent.
However, this doesn't completely free you from worrying about memory management on these platforms. I describe the primary issue to watch out for (retain cycles) in my answer here, which may require a little thought on your part to mark weak pointers. However, that's minor when compared to what you're gaining in ARC.
When compared to manual memory management and garbage collection, ARC gives you the best of both worlds by cutting out the need to write retain / release code, yet not having the halting and sawtooth memory profiles seen in a garbage collected environment. About the only advantages garbage collection has over this are its ability to deal with retain cycles and the fact that atomic property assignments are inexpensive (as discussed here). I know I'm replacing all of my existing Mac GC code with ARC implementations.
As to whether this could be extended to other languages, it seems geared around the reference counting system in Objective-C. It might be difficult to apply this to Java or other languages, but I don't know enough about the low-level compiler details to make a definitive statement there. Given that Apple is the one pushing this effort in LLVM, Objective-C will come first unless another party commits significant resources of their own to this.
The unveiling of this shocked developers at WWDC, so people weren't aware that something like this could be done. It may appear on other platforms over time, but for now it's exclusive to LLVM and Objective-C.
ARC is just play old retain/release (MRC) with the compiler figuring out when to call retain/release. It will tend to have higher performance, lower peak memory use, and more predictable performance than a GC system.
On the other hand some types of data structure are not possible with ARC (or MRC), while GC can handle them.
As an example, if you have a class named node, and node has an NSArray of children, and a single reference to its parent that "just works" with GC. With ARC (and manual reference counting as well) you have a problem. Any given node will be referenced from its children and also from its parent.
Like:
A -> [B1, B2, B3]
B1 -> A, B2 -> A, B3 -> A
All is fine while you are using A (say via a local variable).
When you are done with it (and B1/B2/B3), a GC system will eventually decide to look at everything it can find starting from the stack and CPU registers. It will never find A,B1,B2,B3 so it will finalize them and recycle the memory into other objects.
When you use ARC or MRC, and finish with A it have a refcount of 3 (B1, B2, and B3 all reference it), and B1/B2/B3 will all have a reference count of 1 (A's NSArray holds one reference to each). So all of those objects remain live even though nothing can ever use them.
The common solution is to decide one of those references needs to be weak (not contribute to the reference count). That will work for some usage patterns, for example if you reference B1/B2/B3 only via A. However in other patterns it fails. For example if you will sometimes hold onto B1, and expect to climb back up via the parent pointer and find A. With a weak reference if you only hold onto B1, A can (and normally will) evaporate, and take B2, and B3 with it.
Sometimes this isn't an issue, but some very useful and natural ways of working with complex structures of data are very difficult to use with ARC/MRC.
So ARC targets the same sort of problems GC targets. However ARC works on a more limited set of usage patterns then GC, so if you took a GC language (like Java) and grafted something like ARC onto it some programs wouldn't work any more (or at least would generate tons of abandoned memory, and may cause serious swapping issues or run out of memory or swap space).
You can also say ARC puts a bigger priority on performance (or maybe predictability) while GC puts a bigger priority on being a generic solution. As a result GC has less predictable CPU/memory demands, and a lower performance (normally) than ARC, but can handle any usage pattern. ARC will work much better for many many common usage patterns, but for a few (valid!) usage patterns it will fall over and die.
Magic
But more specifically ARC works by doing exactly what you would do with your code (with certain minor differences). ARC is a compile time technology, unlike GC which is runtime and will impact your performance negatively. ARC will track the references to objects for you and synthesize the retain/release/autorelease methods according to the normal rules. Because of this ARC can also release things as soon as they are no longer needed, rather than throwing them into an autorelease pool purely for convention sake.
Some other improvements include zeroing weak references, automatic copying of blocks to the heap, speedups across the board (6x for autorelease pools!).
More detailed discussion about how all this works is found in the LLVM Docs on ARC.
It varies greatly from garbage collection. Have you seen the warnings that tell you that you may be leaking objects on different lines? Those statements even tell you on what line you allocated the object. This has been taken a step further and now can insert retain/release statements at the proper locations, better than most programmers, almost 100% of the time. Occasionally there are some weird instances of retained objects that you need to help it out with.
Very well explained by Apple developer documentation. Read "How ARC Works"
To make sure that instances don’t disappear while they are still needed, ARC tracks how many properties, constants, and variables are currently referring to each class instance. ARC will not deallocate an instance as long as at least one active reference to that instance still exists.
To make sure that instances don’t disappear while they are still needed, ARC tracks how many properties, constants, and variables are currently referring to each class instance. ARC will not deallocate an instance as long as at least one active reference to that instance still exists.
To know Diff. between Garbage collection and ARC: Read this
ARC is a compiler feature that provides automatic memory management of objects.
Instead of you having to remember when to use retain, release, and autorelease, ARC evaluates the lifetime requirements of your objects and automatically inserts appropriate memory management calls for you at compile time. The compiler also generates appropriate dealloc methods for you.
The compiler inserts the necessary retain/release calls at compile time, but those calls are executed at runtime, just like any other code.
The following diagram would give you the better understanding of how ARC works.
Those who're new in iOS development and not having work experience on Objective C.
Please refer the Apple's documentation for Advanced Memory Management Programming Guide for better understanding of memory management.
I've long considered myself a garbage collection snob – despite a secret love for C++, I find myself sneering at developers who actively choose to use languages without (read: missing) garbage collection when they're given the option.
And then I met Objective-C. Wow! Its system of reference counting seems brilliantly simple – I'd even go so far as to say elegant. When developing for OSX, developers are given the option to use a snazzy GC; when developing for iOS, developers are stuck with reference counting.
My question is:
If I am developing an OSX application that could potentially be ported to iOS, is Objective-C's reference counting system time-consuming enough (development-wise and bug-fixing-wise) to warrant ignoring it for the application's first version?
What problems am I likely to run into if I rely on reference counting*, assuming I'm not clever enough to construct any diabolically complex cyclical data structures? With features like autorelease, it all seems so easy, but I know that Apple wouldn't have invested the effort into creating a garbage collector if this were really the case. What should I be on the lookout for?
* I am aware that I can use the garbage collector even if I am throwing around retains and releases (they'll be ignored). However, considering non-GC applications often use RAII, I don't understand how that would work if a generational GC were to "replace" calls to retain and release. Wouldn't resources potentially be released late?
My experience with developing code to port to iOS is that taking GC only code and back porting it to reference counting is a bit tedious and time consuming and potentially error prone. Having said that, as long as you use properties (make them retain even though it makes no difference in GC) as much as possible and you enable the static analyser build phase, it's not too bad. The static analyser will catch most failures to observe the memory management rules. It won't notice if you fail to release an ivar in dealloc, but you can go through and systematically add all the dealloc methods.
Bear in mind that you can't directly port a Mac application to the iPhone, the VC part of MVC has to be completely rewritten, so you could take the approach of writing the Mac UI solely for garbage collection and only make the model classes compatible with both GC and reference counting.
Sorry for long description, however the questions aren't so easy...
My project written without GC. Recently I found a memory leak that I can't find. I did use new Xcode Analyzer without a result. I did read my code line by line and verified all alloc/release/copy/autorelease/mutableCopy/retain and pools... - still nothing.
Preamble: Standard Instruments and Omni Leak Checker don't work for me by some reason (Omin Tool rejects my app, Instruments.app (Leaks) eats too many memory and CPU so I have no chance to use it).
So I wanna write and use my own code to hook & track "all" alloc/allocWithZone:/dealloc messages statistics to write some simple own leaks checking library (the main goal is only to mark objects' class names with possible leaks).
The main hooking technique that I use:
Method originalAllocWithZone = class_getClassMethod([NSObject class],#selector(allocWithZone:));
if (originalAllocWithZone)
{
imp_azo = (t_impAZOriginal)method_getImplementation(originalAllocWithZone);
if (imp_azo)
{
Method hookedAllocWithZone = class_getClassMethod([NSObject class],#selector(hookedAllocWithZone:));
if (hookedAllocWithZone)
{
method_setImplementation(originalAllocWithZone,method_getImplementation(hookedAllocWithZone));
fprintf(stderr,"Leaks Hook: allocWithZone: ; Installed\n");
}
}
}
code like this for hook the alloc method, and dealloc as NSObject category method.
I save IMP for previous methods implementation then register & calculate all alloc/allocWithZone: calls as increment (+1) stat-array NSInteger values, and dealloc calls as decrement (-1).
As end point I call previous implementation and return value.
In concept all works just fine.
If it needs, I can even detect when class are part of class cluster (like NSString, NSPathStore2; NSDate, __NSCFDate)... via some normalize-function (but it doesn't matter for the issues described bellow).
However this technique has some issues:
Not all classes can be caught, for
example, [NSDate date] doesn't catch
in alloc/allocWithZone: at all, however, I can see alloc call in GDB
Since I'm trying to use auto singleton detection technique (based on retainCount readind) to auto exclude some objects from final statistics, NSLocale creation freezes on pre-init stage when starting of full Cocoa application (actually, even simple Objective-C command line utility with the Foundation framework included has some additional initialization before main()) - by GDB there is allocWithZone: calls one after other,....
Full Concept-Project draft sources uploaded here: http://unclemif.com/external/DILeak.zip (3.5 Kb)
Run make from Terminal.app to compile it, run ./concept to show it in action.
The 1st Question: Why I can't catch all object allocations by hooking alloc & allocWithZone: methods?
The 2nd Question: Why hooked allocWithZone: freezes in CFGetRetainCount (or [inst retainCount]) for some classes...
Holy re-inventing the wheel, batman!
You are making this way harder than it needs to be. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to roll your own object tracking tools (though it is an interesting mental exercise).
Because you are using GC, the tools for tracking allocations and identifying leaks are all very mature.
Under GC, a leak will take one of two forms; either there will be a strong reference to the object that should long ago been destroyed or the object has been CFRetain'd without a balancing CFRelease.
The collector is quite adept at figuring out why any given object is remaining beyond its welcome.
Thus, you need to find some set of objects that are sticking around too long. Any object will do. Once you have the address of said object, you can use the Object Graph instrument in Instruments to figure out why it is sticking around; figure out what is still referring to it or where it was retained.
Or, from gdb, use info gc-roots 0xaddr to find all of the various things that are rooting the object. If you turn on malloc history (see the malloc man page), you can get the allocation histories of the objects that are holding the reference.
Oh, without GC, huh...
You are still left with a plethora of tools and no need to re-invent the wheel.
The leaks command line tool will often give you some good clues. Turn on MallocStackLoggingNoCompact to be able to use malloc_history (another command line tool).
Or use the ObjectAlloc instrument.
In any case, you need to identify an object or two that is being leaked. With that, you can figure out what is hanging on to it. In non-GC, that is entirely a case of figuring out why it there is a retain not balanced by a release.
Even without the Leaks instrument, Instruments can still help you.
Start with the Leaks template, then delete the Leaks instrument from it (since you say it uses too much memory). ObjectAlloc alone will tell you all of your objects' allocations and deallocations, and (with an option turned on, which it is by default in the Leaks template) all of their retentions and releases as well.
You can set the ObjectAlloc instrument to only show you objects that still exist; if you bring the application to the point where no objects (or no objects of a certain class) should exist, and such objects do still exist, then you have a leak. You can then drill down to find the cause of the leak.
This video may help.
Start from the Xcode templates. Don't try to roll your own main() routine for a cocoa app until you know what you're doing.