On 04/27/2010 2:12 PM, "Bill Bumgarner" <b...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Gary L. Wade wrote: > >> On 04/27/2010 1:58 PM, "Bill Bumgarner" <b...@mac.com> wrote: >> >>> Frankly, the -retainCount method should be deprecated and, eventually, >>> removed. >> >> I wouldn't go THAT far; after all, when you're tracking a memory leak, >> checking your influence on the retain count is important to your >> investigation. Hopefully that's why the original poster is looking at it. > > The combination of leaks, zombies, heap, and malloc stack logging are much > *much* more powerful and effective than trying to debug a leak, over-retain or > under-retain with -retainCount. > > b.bum > Yes, but how would you use those to determine why an Apple framework now chooses to retain a delegate (I'm referring to one particular one I discovered), thereby causing a retain cycle? It's not a memory leak in the sense that Instruments or leaks would ever catch it. Calling -retainCount immediately before and after the -setDelegate call is pretty much the only way. _______________________________________________ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
