On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le 20 mars 08 à 06:26, Michael Ash a écrit : > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Jens Alfke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> It's never a good idea to > >> make assumptions about where a Foundation object is putting its data; > >> if you need to access the current bytes of an NSData, call -bytes > >> on it. > > > > This was a little confusing to me until I thought about it a bit, so I > > thought I would emphasize this. > > > > When you use these methods and tell it to free the memory, the object > > you create takes ownership of the block of memory. This means that > > it's responsible for freeing it, but more importantly it means that > > it's *in control* of freeing it. In other words, conceptually speaking > > it's never safe to refer back to this block of memory directly after > > you create the object. Instead you should query the object to get > > whatever you need from it, in this case query the -bytes method to get > > the pointer back. > > > > If I understand the API contract, the code in question is not even > > safe when using NSData. It happens to work, but the contract does not > > guarantee it. To be safe, the NSData should be created, then the > > return value from its -bytes method should be returned. If I'm wrong > > about this, I'd appreciate any corrections. > > -bytes returns a (const void *) that you should not change. > If you want to create a raw buffer using NSData, use NSMutableData and > -mutableBytes method.
That's right. Using NSMutableData is better, but inefficient, since as we noted it will copy your block. If you want to return an "autoreleased" pointer without a copy then I believe there are two approaches: - Malloc the memory, build its contents, and only when you're done wrap it in an NSData. This will require you to return a const pointer but that's probably preferable anyway. The fact that it doesn't copy is, of course, an implementation detail but since it's just for efficiency's sake then nothing terrible will happen if this detail changes. - Simply allocate the block using +[NSMutableData dataWithLength:] in place of malloc. This will give you a pre-wrapped piece of mutable memory which you can modify and return. Personally the last approach seems best to me, it's simple and obvious. It should probably be noted that none of these approaches will work under garbage collection, but the answer there is of course even easier, just use NSAllocateCollectable and be done with it. Mike
_______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
