How does the new automatic reference counting mech

问题:

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?

回答1:

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.

回答2:

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.

回答3:

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.

回答4:

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.

回答5:

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