I am using GDIView to try to track down the source of a few lingering GDI handles, and the source seems to be Fonts used in a menu on the form. The only way I've found to make sure the font handles are GCed is to explicitly set them to null like this:
tsmiTextLocation.Font = null;
tsmiLocationSelection.Font = null;
This doesn't seem quite right to me, but I'm not sure how else to address the issue. Has anyone else run into this problem before?
Even though it is best practice to call IDisposable.Dispose() yourself either by calling it directly or leveraging the using keyword. Some GDI+ objects are exception to this rule.
GDI+ contains predefined brushes and pens in Brushes and Pens classes. You should not call Dispose() on objects returned by members of these classes (or other GDI pre-cached objects which you haven't created by new on your own).
And a note from MSDN - Font.Dispose:
Always call Dispose before you release your last reference to the Font.
Otherwise, the resources it is using will not be freed until the garbage
collector calls the Font object's Finalize method.
Setting to null will make them be garbage collected eventually, and the finalizer will be called. This could take some time, if there is no memory pressure the objects may live for a while.
System.Drawing.Font implements IDisposable, so you should call Font.Dispose to free up any unmanaged resources (the GDI handles) deterministically.
I believe you have to call Dispose explicitly, since the font may be shared and therefore the form can't dispose of the font in its Dispose method.
A best practice is that if the class implements IDisposable, you should make every attempt to call Dispose on your instances.
Most GDI classes support IDisposable.
Related
This question already has answers here:
What is IDisposable for?
(6 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I come from a C++ background and have trouble understanding the point of IDisposable objects (and the point of many other things in .NET). Why is a Dispose function necessary in the first place? Whatever it does, why not do that in the destructor of the class? I understand it cleans up managed resources, but isn't that what a destructor is supposed to do? I understand that
Using ( var obj = new SomeIDisposableObject )
{
// ...
}
is the equivalent of
var obj = new SomeIDisposableObject;
// ...
obj.Dispose();
but how does that save any typing? And if C# has a garbage collector, which it does, then why are we ever worried about disposing resources?
Is IDisposable/Using/etc. a Skeet-approved concept? What does he think of it?
IDisposable is nothing special. It's just an interface that makes you have a Dispose() function. IDisposable won't clear anything or destroy objects. A call to Dispose() does nothing if that function does nothing.
The use of IDisposable is a pattern. It's so important that it gets its own language construct (the using block), but it's just a pattern.
The difference with a destructor, is that in .NET, the destructor is non-deterministic. You never know when the garbage collector will collect your object. You don't even know if it even will (unlike using delete in C++, which is deterministic).
So IDisposable is there for deterministically releasing unneeded references (and releasing unmanaged resources). The "disposed" object will remain in memory after you call Dispose until the garbage collector decides to collect it (at which point, the "destructor" will be called, unless you explicitly tell it not-to), if it ever decides to.
That's the main difference to using "destructors" (or finalizers, as they are called in C#).
As for the why do we need it:
Managed references to other objects prevent objects to be collected by the garbage collector. So you need to "release" those references (by, for example, setting the variables that reference those objects to null).
Objects in .NET can use unmanaged resources, if they use native libraries. For example, every control or bitmap in a Windows.Forms application uses a Win32 handler, which is unmanaged. If you don't release those resources, you may reach the handle limit in Windows if using any big application, easily. Also, if you need interoperability with any non-.NET API, you'll more likely have to allocate unmanaged memory (with the use of, for example, Marshal.AllocHGlobal), which will need to be released at some point: that point is generally the Dispose() function of the IDisposable, which must be called explicitly (or by using a using block).
As for the using block, it's more equivalent to:
var myObject = new MyDisposableClass();
try
{
...
}
finally {
myObject.Dispose();
}
So it does indeed save typing
Using a using block doesn't only call the .Dispose method; it calls the .Dispose method when you leave the block, however you leave it. So, if your code crashes, it will still call Dispose. The actual code would be closer to:
try
{
var obj = new SomeIDisposableObject;
// ...
}
catch (exception ex)
{
}
finally
{
obj.Dispose();
}
Additionally, destructors don't always fire when you expect them to. I've had a few bugs where the destructor is called after the program has apparently exited, and tried to access resources that no longer exist. Since you don't know when it will be called, it's difficult to fix this.
MSDN recommends disposing any variable of type System.Drawing.Brush before its last reference is released. Otherwise, the resources it is using will not be freed until the garbage collector calls the Brush object's Finalize method.
As we know, local variables are destroyed automatically when the control flow goes out of the scope of the method it belongs. So, is it necessary to dispose a brush object every time if it is local?
Yes it is necessary. The flaw in your logic is when you said:
As we know, local variables are destroyed automatically when the control flow goes out of the scope of the method it belongs.
That statement is false.
When variables go out of scope, that means that they are candidates to be destroyed by the garbage collector at some point in the future, but most likely not right away. As such, if it is important to release system resources right away, you need to manually do so rather than waiting for the garbage collector to get around to doing it at some point in the future.
That is why classes which use system resources implement the IDisposable interface. They expect you to call their Dispose method when you are done with them so that they can immediately release the system resource. It's safe to assume that you should always call the Dispose method on every object that implements the IDisposable interface. If it wasn't necessary, they wouldn't implement that interface.
In the case case of the Brush class, it creates a system object via the GDI API. In order to draw filled figures via the GDI API, you must call a method to create a brush object. The API returns a handle to the brush object which you can then use to refer to that brush in later API calls. When you are done with the brush, you are supposed to call a DeleteObject API call in order to delete the object. Since each process in Windows is limited to a maximum of 10,000 GDI objects, it's very important that you delete them when you are done with them, otherwise you will run out of GDI objects and cause an OutOfMemoryException. That is why the Brush class implements the IDisposable interface--so that it can delete the underlying GDI object.
It's recommended when possible, to use a using block on all disposable objects. When execution leaves the using block, it will automatically call the Dispose method on the object for you, even if execution leaves the block due to an exception.
using(Brush b = New Brush())
{
// use the brush
}
Or
Using b As New Brush()
' use the brush
End Using
As we know, local variables are destroyed automatically
No, that's a myth. The word "destroy" is entirely inappropriate, that suggests that the program actually makes an effort to do something special with the variable in order to invoke destruction. Like throwing a brick into a glass window. That's just not how it works, the variable simply disappears in thin air. It is forgotten, as though it never existed. No brick is thrown. Ultimately the storage for the variable is overwritten by something else, it is reused. Usually in a fraction of a microsecond.
Not having to destroy a variable is what makes managed code competitive with native code. A C++ compiler for example must do it explicitly, the RAII pattern is boilerplate. Older runtime implementations that use reference counting are another example, they must ensure to explicitly count-down the reference count. That's extra code that managed code doesn't need, the garbage collector knows when a local variable is in use. It is just a bit slow at getting that job done, the reason that IDisposable exists. An attempt to add reference counting to the CLR was an abysmal failure, it could not compete with the GC.
Using the using statement is required to throw the brick.
Even though the local variable is destroyed, that is just a reference to the Brush object which is locate don the managed heap. It's not until the garbage collector sweeps the managed heap that the actual object is destroyed and the resources freed.
As a general rule: Always call Dispose on any object implementing IDisposable when you're done with the object.
The best way is often to use the using construct which will dispose correctly even in the case of exceptions:
using(var brush = CreateBrush())
{
brush.PaintSomethingNice();
}
Yes, it is necessary. In general, if it implements IDisposable, you should dispose it when you're done with it. When it goes out of scope, that only means that it is eligible for garbage collection. GC might not dispose of it for a long time, so you should dispose of it immediately.
I have a object and simply want to destroy it on some event. How to call the destructor in XNA?
Set the object to null and the Garbage Collector will pick it up on it's next run.
As a side note, if the object is something that you create often (enemies, bullets etc..), then you may want to use a pool instead of deleting the object. This would mean that object is recycled, and thus, the garbage collector is called less often which will increase performance.
While your mileage may vary, my preference is to use IDisposable and Dispose() of objects I no longer need. This is esp. true when you are using unmanaged resources, but having the Dispose() set up declares intent.
See this resource on GC.SuppressFinalize for a good example of how to implement IDisposable.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.gc.suppressfinalize.aspx
Set reference to this object to null.
After setting the object to null, if you want for some reason the object to be collected immediately, call GC.Collect().
What kind of object? If is an Disposable/IDisposable you should call object.Dispose()
Otherwise, you can just use object=null, and it will be 'cleaned' automatically. This is not C you're working in ;)
If your 'object' is actually a complex class or something with more objects in it, you might want to consider making it an IDisposable class.
If the object holds any unmanaged resources then implement IDisposable (and use using or call Dispose() on it when you're done with it).
If it doesn't hold unmanaged resources then the garbage collector will claim it "at some point" when there are no more references to it.
GC.Collect() will make the garbage collector collect and it will "destroy" your object if there are no references to it. This is not a very good idea since it has performance implications (it takes time and promotes other objects into a higher generation making them last longer in memory before being reclaimed).
Why do you need the object destroyed at a certain fixed time?
What you want to do is call GC.SuppressFinalize() if you are handling the cleanup yourself... Usually you use GC.SuppressFinalize() within an IDisposable class. See this code example for the common use of IDisposable:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.gc.suppressfinalize.aspx
If you really need to have it Garbage Collected right away:
var myObj = new MyObject();
// This object will be cleaned up by the Dispose method.
// Therefore, you should call GC.SupressFinalize to
// take this object off the finalization queue
// and prevent finalization code for this object
// from executing a second time.
GC.SuppressFinalize(myObj);
But I caution you that you should really let the object go out of scope, and let the GC collect the objects naturally. The .NET runtime is very efficient at managing memory as long as you don't try to do it's job.
EDIT
After reviewing the comments, I see you forgot to leave an important piece of information, in that you were binding the object in question to other objects methods. This means that the object that you are trying to finalize is not going to finalize until the method used to watch the event has finalized, thus keeping around a ton of extra objects in memory.
What you can do to break this strong reference is use an object called WeakReference. Or use lambdas to to break the strong references.
See this for an example of using a WeakReference
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.weakreference.aspx
Or you can do something like this:
dym.cas += (x, y, z) => gameTime.ElapsedGameTime(x,y,z);
instead of
dym.cas += gameTime.ElapsedGameTime;
Just not sure, if I have class of type Image and want to clear it, is it enough to set its instance to null?
Or I need to call its dispose method? Thanks
You should definitely dispose it. For example, it might have an open file handle which will remain in use until finalization if you just allow the image to be garbage collected. That's just one practical example of a problem - but the best clue that you should dispose of the image is that the class implements IDisposable :)
Note that usually you shouldn't set variables to null - that's rarely required, and adds clutter to the code. You should dispose of disposable objects. Typically that's done in a using statement, unless you're disposing of an instance variable, which would typically be done within your own Dispose method.
Final note: you can't set an instance to null... you can assign the value "null" to a variable, that's all.
You need to call its Dispose method. Setting an instance variable to null doesn't do anything useful, and you shouldn't ever need to do this in C#.
In general, the rule is that if an object implements the IDisposable interface, you should call its Dispose method as soon as you are finished with it. This helps to avoid memory leaks for objects that make use of unmanaged resources. The best way to do this is wrapping it in a using statement.
I am fascinated by the way the CLR and GC works (I'm working on expanding my knowledge on this by reading CLR via C#, Jon Skeet's books/posts, and more).
Anyway, what is the difference between saying:
MyClass myclass = new MyClass();
myclass = null;
Or, by making MyClass implement IDisposable and a destructor and calling Dispose()?
Also, if I have a code block with a using statement (eg below), if I step through the code and exit the using block, is the object disposed of then or when a garbage collection occurs? What would happen if I call Dispose() in the using block anyay?
using (MyDisposableObj mydispobj = new MyDisposableObj())
{
}
Stream classes (eg BinaryWriter) have a Finalize method? Why would I want to use that?
It's important to separate disposal from garbage collection. They are completely separate things, with one point in common which I'll come to in a minute.
Dispose, garbage collection and finalization
When you write a using statement, it's simply syntactic sugar for a try/finally block so that Dispose is called even if the code in the body of the using statement throws an exception. It doesn't mean that the object is garbage collected at the end of the block.
Disposal is about unmanaged resources (non-memory resources). These could be UI handles, network connections, file handles etc. These are limited resources, so you generally want to release them as soon as you can. You should implement IDisposable whenever your type "owns" an unmanaged resource, either directly (usually via an IntPtr) or indirectly (e.g. via a Stream, a SqlConnection etc).
Garbage collection itself is only about memory - with one little twist. The garbage collector is able to find objects which can no longer be referenced, and free them. It doesn't look for garbage all the time though - only when it detects that it needs to (e.g. if one "generation" of the heap runs out of memory).
The twist is finalization. The garbage collector keeps a list of objects which are no longer reachable, but which have a finalizer (written as ~Foo() in C#, somewhat confusingly - they're nothing like C++ destructors). It runs the finalizers on these objects, just in case they need to do extra cleanup before their memory is freed.
Finalizers are almost always used to clean up resources in the case where the user of the type has forgotten to dispose of it in an orderly manner. So if you open a FileStream but forget to call Dispose or Close, the finalizer will eventually release the underlying file handle for you. In a well-written program, finalizers should almost never fire in my opinion.
Setting a variable to null
One small point on setting a variable to null - this is almost never required for the sake of garbage collection. You might sometimes want to do it if it's a member variable, although in my experience it's rare for "part" of an object to no longer be needed. When it's a local variable, the JIT is usually smart enough (in release mode) to know when you're not going to use a reference again. For example:
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append("Foo");
string x = sb.ToString();
// The string and StringBuilder are already eligible
// for garbage collection here!
int y = 10;
DoSomething(y);
// These aren't helping at all!
x = null;
sb = null;
// Assume that x and sb aren't used here
The one time where it may be worth setting a local variable to null is when you're in a loop, and some branches of the loop need to use the variable but you know you've reached a point at which you don't. For example:
SomeObject foo = new SomeObject();
for (int i=0; i < 100000; i++)
{
if (i == 5)
{
foo.DoSomething();
// We're not going to need it again, but the JIT
// wouldn't spot that
foo = null;
}
else
{
// Some other code
}
}
Implementing IDisposable/finalizers
So, should your own types implement finalizers? Almost certainly not. If you only indirectly hold unmanaged resources (e.g. you've got a FileStream as a member variable) then adding your own finalizer won't help: the stream will almost certainly be eligible for garbage collection when your object is, so you can just rely on FileStream having a finalizer (if necessary - it may refer to something else, etc). If you want to hold an unmanaged resource "nearly" directly, SafeHandle is your friend - it takes a bit of time to get going with, but it means you'll almost never need to write a finalizer again. You should usually only need a finalizer if you have a really direct handle on a resource (an IntPtr) and you should look to move to SafeHandle as soon as you can. (There are two links there - read both, ideally.)
Joe Duffy has a very long set of guidelines around finalizers and IDisposable (co-written with lots of smart folk) which are worth reading. It's worth being aware that if you seal your classes, it makes life a lot easier: the pattern of overriding Dispose to call a new virtual Dispose(bool) method etc is only relevant when your class is designed for inheritance.
This has been a bit of a ramble, but please ask for clarification where you'd like some :)
When you dispose an object, the resources are freed. When you assign null to a variable, you're just changing a reference.
myclass = null;
After you execute this, the object myclass was referring to still exists, and will continue to until the GC gets around to cleaning it up. If Dispose is explicitly called, or it's in a using block, any resources will be freed as soon as possible.
The two operations don't have much to do with each others.
When you set a reference to null, it simply does that. It doesn't in itself affect the class that was referenced at all.
Your variable simply no longer points to the object it used to, but the object itself is unchanged.
When you call Dispose(), it's a method call on the object itself. Whatever the Dispose method does, is now done on the object. But this doesn't affect your reference to the object.
The only area of overlap is that when there are no more references to an object, it will eventually get garbage collected. And if the class implements the IDisposable interface, then Dispose() will be called on the object before it gets garbage collected.
But that won't happen immediately after you set your reference to null, for two reasons.
First, other references may exist, so it won't get garbage collected at all yet, and second, even if that was the last reference, so it is now ready to be garbage collected, nothing will happen until the garbage collector decides to delete the object.
Calling Dispose() on an object doesn't "kill" the object in any way. It is commonly used to clean up so that the object can be safely deleted afterwards, but ultimately, there is nothing magical about Dispose, it's just a class method.