简体   繁体   English

init返回nil会导致内存泄漏吗?

[英]Will returning nil in init cause a memory leak?

Will returning nil under ARC in init lead to memory leak, when [super init] was already called, but then returned nil? 在已经调用[super init]但又返回nil下,在init ARC下返回nil会导致内存泄漏吗? Is this a legit usage? 这是合法用法吗?

- (id)init {
   self = [super init];
   if (self) {

       ...
       return nil;
       ...

   }
   return self;
}

First of all: For Qs referring to ARC never read Apple's documentation, but clang's. 首先:关于Q的ARC从来没有阅读过Apple的文档,而是从clang的文档。

Apple's documentation simply conceals (concealed?) the execution of -init and have wrong examples like that: Apple的文档仅隐藏(隐藏?)- -init的执行,并具有如下错误的示例:

id ref = [[Class alloc] init]

You will find there a statement like " +alloc transfers ownership". 您会在此处找到类似“ +alloc transfers +alloc ”的语句。 This is at least misleading, because the return value auf -init and not the return value of +alloc is stored. 这至少具有误导性,因为存储了返回值auf -init不是 +alloc的返回值。

clang's documentation is better and more precise by far. 到目前为止,clang的文档更好,更精确。 Basically they say, that +alloc is an ownership transfer and that -init is ownership consuming and ownership transferring. 他们基本上说, +alloc是所有权转移-init是所有权消耗和所有权转移。

http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AutomaticReferenceCounting.html#semantics-of-init http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AutomaticReferenceCounting.html#semantics-of-init

Methods in the init family implicitly consume their self parameter and return a retained object. 初始化族中的方法隐式使用其自身参数并返回保留的对象。

So let's have a look to the usual code: 因此,让我们看一下通常的代码:

id ref = [Class alloc]; 
// ref is strong: RC is +1;
id ref = [ref init];    
  // Three things happen her:
  // 1. -init is executed
  // 2. The new value is stored
  // 3. The old value of ref is lost

  // 1. -init is executed
  // self is (silently) passed to the receiver
  - (id)init           
  {
    // Since self is strong (+1), RC is +2 now
    // Since -init is ownership consuming (-1), RC is +1 now
    …
    return self;
    // Since -init is ownership transferring (+1), RC is +2 now
  }

  // 2. The new value is stored
  // The value comes from an ownership transfer method, so the assignment to strong ref is neutral (0), RC is still +2

  // 3. The old value is lost (-1), RC is +1

The result is that the object has an RC of +1 and you have one strong reference to it in that code area. 结果是该对象的RC为+1,并且您在该代码区域中对其有一个强大的引用。 Everything is fine. 一切顺利。 (Of course there is a high potential for optimization, because in most cases neither self nor ref is changed, but let's keep on the regular track.) (当然,有很大的优化潜力,因为在大多数情况下, selfref都不会改变,但让我们保持常规。)

Let's change self inside -init : 让我们在-init内部更改self

id ref = [Class alloc]; // Ownership transfer. RC is +1;
id ref = [ref init];    
  // Three things happen her:
  // 1. -init is executed
  // 2. The new value is stored
  // 3. The old value of ref is lost

  // 1. -init is executed
  //     self is (silently) passed to the receiver
  - (id)init           
  {
    // Since self is strong (+1), RC is +2 now
    // Since -init is ownership consuming (-1), RC is +1 now

    // Let's return nil as in your example
    return nil;
    // Because nil is returned, virtually the RC of nil is increased. self's RC == +1 is unchanged.
  }

  // 2. The new value is stored
  // The new value is nil.
  // However the value comes from an ownership transfer method, so the assignment to strong ref is neutral (0), RC is still +1

  // 3. The old value is lost (your old ref and the self while executing -init) (-1), RC is 0
  // The old object is dealloced, if you do not have another ref to it. Nothing leaks.

我只是在乐器中检查过-没有内存泄漏

声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM