Shall we always use unowned self inside closure in Swift

Question

In WWDC 2014 session 403 Intermediate Swift and transcript  there was the following slide    The speaker said in that case  if we don t use  unowned self  there  it will be a memory leak  Does it mean we should always use  unowned self  inside closure    On line 64 of ViewController swift of the Swift Weather app  I don t use  unowned self   But I update the UI by using some  IBOutlets like self temperature and self loadingIndicator  It may be OK because all  IBOutlets I defined are weak  But for safety  should we always use  unowned self    class TempNotifier     var onChange   Int  - gt  Void      in     var currentTemp   72   init         onChange      unowned self  temp in       self currentTemp   temp

User · Answer

import UIKit  class ViewController  UIViewController        override func viewDidLoad             super viewDidLoad              Do any additional setup after loading the view           let storyboard   UIStoryboard name   Main   bundle  nil          let controller   storyboard instantiateViewController withIdentifier   AnotherViewController           self navigationController  pushViewController controller  animated  true               import UIKit class AnotherViewController  UIViewController        var name   String       deinit           print  Deint AnotherViewController              override func viewDidLoad             super viewDidLoad            print CFGetRetainCount self                           When you test please comment out or vice versa                            Should not use unowned here  Because unowned is used where not deallocated  or gurranted object alive  If you immediate click back button app will crash here  Though there will no retain cycles           clouser string         unowned self   boolValue   in               self name    some                                   There will be a retain cycle  because viewcontroller has a strong refference to this clouser and as well as clouser  self name  has a strong refferennce to the viewcontroller  Deint AnotherViewController will not print           clouser string         boolValue   in               self name    some                                   no retain cycle here  because viewcontroller has a strong refference to this clouser  But clouser  self name  has a weak refferennce to the viewcontroller  Deint AnotherViewController will  print  As we forcefully made viewcontroller weak so its now optional type  migh be nil  and we added a    self                clouser string         weak self   boolValue   in               self  name    some                           no retain cycle here  because viewcontroller has a strong refference to this clouser  But clouser nos refference to the viewcontroller  Deint AnotherViewController will  print  As we forcefully made viewcontroller weak so its now optional type  migh be nil  and we added a    self            clouser string          boolValue   in             print  some               print CFGetRetainCount self                           func clouser string  String  completion   escaping  Bool  - gt                   some heavy task         DispatchQueue main asyncAfter deadline   now     5 0                completion true                           If you do not sure about  unowned self   then use  weak self

User · Answer

If self could be nil in the closure use  weak self    If self will never be nil in the closure use  unowned self    The Apple Swift documentation has a great section with images explaining the difference between using strong  weak  and unowned in closures   https   developer apple com library content documentation Swift Conceptual Swift Programming Language AutomaticReferenceCounting html

User · Answer

Update 11 2016 I wrote an article on this extending this answer  looking into SIL to understand what ARC does   check it out here  Original answer The previous answers don t really give straightforward rules on when to use one over the other and why  so let me add a few things  The unowned or weak discussion boils down to a question of lifetime of the variable and the closure that references it   Scenarios You can have two possible scenarios   The closure have the same lifetime of the variable  so the closure will be reachable only until the variable is reachable  The variable and the closure have the same lifetime  In this case you should declare the reference as unowned  A common example is the  unowned self  used in many example of small closures that do something in the context of their parent and that not being referenced anywhere else do not outlive their parents   The closure lifetime is independent from the one of the variable  the closure could still be referenced when the variable is not reachable anymore  In this case you should declare the reference as weak and verify it s not nil before using it  don t force unwrap   A common example of this is the  weak delegate  you can see in some examples of closure referencing a completely unrelated  lifetime-wise  delegate object    Actual Usage So  which will should you actually use most of the times  Quoting Joe Groff from twitter   Unowned is faster and allows for immutability and nonoptionality  If you don t need weak  don t use it   You ll find more about unowned  inner workings here    Usually also referred to as unowned safe  to indicate that runtime checks  that lead to a crash for invalid references  are performed before accessing the unowned reference

User · Answer

There are some great answers here  But recent changes to how Swift implements weak references should change everyone s weak self vs  unowned self usage decisions  Previously  if you needed the best performance using unowned self was superior to weak self  as long as you could be certain that self would never be nil  because accessing unowned self is much faster than accessing weak self   But Mike Ash has documented how Swift has updated the implementation of weak vars to use side-tables and how this substantially improves weak self performance   https   mikeash com pyblog friday-qa-2017-09-22-swift-4-weak-references html  Now that there isn t a significant performance penalty to weak self  I believe we  should default to using it going forward  The benefit of weak self is that it s an optional  which makes it far easier to write more correct code  it s basically the reason Swift is such a great language  You may think you know which situations are safe for the use of unowned self  but my experience reviewing lots of other developers code is  most don t  I ve fixed lots of crashes where unowned self was deallocated  usually in situations where a background thread completes after a controller is deallocated     Bugs and crashes are the most time-consuming  painful and expensive parts of programming  Do your best to write correct code and avoid them  I recommend making it a rule to never force unwrap optionals and never use unowned self instead of weak self  You won t lose anything missing the times force unwrapping and unowned self actually are safe  But you ll gain a lot from eliminating hard to find and debug crashes and bugs

User · Answer

According to Apple-doc         Weak references are always of an optional type  and automatically   become nil when the instance they reference is deallocated    If the captured reference will never become nil  it should always be captured as an unowned reference  rather than a weak reference      Example -          if my response can nil use   weak self        resource request   onComplete    weak self  response in       guard let strongSelf   self else           return               let model   strongSelf updateModel response        strongSelf updateUI model                 Only use  unowned self  unowned if guarantees that response never nil         resource request   onComplete    unowned self  response in       let model   self updateModel response        self updateUI model

User · Answer

If none of the above makes sense   tl dr     Just like an implicitly unwrapped optional  If you can guarantee   that the reference will not be nil at its point of use  use unowned    If not  then you should be using weak    Explanation   I retrieved the following below at  weak unowned link  From what I gathered  unowned self can t be nil but weak self can be  and unowned self can lead to dangling pointers   something infamous in Objective-C  Hope it helps      UNOWNED Weak and unowned references behave similarly but are NOT the same      Unowned references  like weak references  do not increase the retain count of the object being referred  However  in Swift  an unowned reference has the added benefit of not being an Optional  This makes them easier to manage rather than resorting to using optional binding  This is not unlike Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals   In addition  unowned references are non-zeroing  This means that when the object is deallocated  it does not zero out the pointer  This means that use of unowned references can  in some cases  lead to dangling pointers  For you nerds out there that remember the Objective-C days like I do  unowned references map to unsafe unretained references   This is where it gets a little confusing       Weak and unowned references both do not increase retain counts    They can both be used to break retain cycles  So when do we use them     According to Apple s docs          Use a weak reference whenever it is valid for that reference to become nil at some point during its lifetime  Conversely  use an unowned reference when you know that the reference will never be nil once it has been set during initialisation

User · Answer

I thought I would add some concrete examples specifically for a view controller  Many of the explanations  not just here on Stack Overflow  are really good  but I work better with real world examples   drewag had a good start on this     If you have a closure to handle a response from a network requests use weak  because they are long lived  The view controller could close before the request completes so self no longer points to a valid object when the closure is called   If you have closure that handles an event on a button  This can be unowned because as soon as the view controller goes away  the button and any other items it may be referencing from self goes away at the same time  The closure block will also go away at the same time    class MyViewController  UIViewController          IBOutlet weak var myButton  UIButton        let networkManager   NetworkManager         let buttonPressClosure     - gt  Void    closure must be held in this class          override func viewDidLoad                  use unowned here           buttonPressClosure      unowned self  in               self changeDisplayViewMode      won t happen after vc closes                            use weak here           networkManager fetch query  query     weak self   results  error  in               self  updateUI      could be called any time after vc closes                            IBAction func buttonPress self  Any             buttonPressClosure                     rest of class below

User · Answer

Here is brilliant quotes from Apple Developer Forums described delicious details   unowned vs unowned safe  vs unowned unsafe      unowned safe  is a non-owning reference that asserts on access that   the object is still alive  It s sort of like a weak optional reference   that s implicitly unwrapped with x  every time it s accessed    unowned unsafe  is like   unsafe unretained in ARC   it s a non-owning   reference  but there s no runtime check that the object is still alive   on access  so dangling references will reach into garbage memory    unowned is always a synonym for unowned safe  currently  but the   intent is that it will be optimized to unowned unsafe  in -Ofast   builds when runtime checks are disabled    unowned vs weak     unowned actually uses a much simpler implementation than weak    Native Swift objects carry two reference counts  and unowned   references bump the unowned reference count instead of the strong   reference count  The object is deinitialized when its strong reference   count reaches zero  but it isn t actually deallocated until the   unowned reference count also hits zero  This causes the memory to be   held onto slightly longer when there are unowned references  but that   isn t usually a problem when unowned is used because the related   objects should have near-equal lifetimes anyway  and it s much simpler   and lower-overhead than the side-table based implementation used for   zeroing weak references    Update  In modern Swift weak internally uses the same mechanism as unowned does  So this comparison is incorrect because it compares Objective-C weak with Swift unonwed   Reasons     What is the purpose of keeping the memory alive after owning references reach 0  What happens if code attempts to do something with   the object using an unowned reference after it is deinitialized       The   memory is kept alive so that its retain counts are still available    This way  when someone attempts to retain a strong reference to the   unowned object  the runtime can check that the strong reference count   is greater than zero in order to ensure that it is safe to retain the   object       What happens to owning or unowned references held by the object   Is their lifetime decoupled from the object when it is deinitialized or   is their memory also retained until the object is deallocated after   the last unowned reference is released       All resources owned by the object are released as soon as the object s   last strong reference is released  and its deinit is run  Unowned   references only keep the memory alive   aside from the header with the   reference counts  its contents is junk    Excited  huh

User · Answer

No  there are definitely times where you would not want to use  unowned self   Sometimes you want the closure to capture self in order to make sure that it is still around by the time the closure is called   Example  Making an asynchronous network request  If you are making an asynchronous network request you do want the closure to retain self for when the request finishes  That object may have otherwise been deallocated but you still want to be able to handle the request finishing   When to use unowned self or weak self  The only time where you really want to use  unowned self  or  weak self  is when you would create a strong reference cycle  A strong reference cycle is when there is a loop of ownership where objects end up owning each other  maybe through a third party  and therefore they will never be deallocated because they are both ensuring that each other stick around   In the specific case of a closure  you just need to realize that any variable that is referenced inside of it  gets  owned  by the closure  As long as the closure is around  those objects are guaranteed to be around  The only way to stop that ownership  is to do the  unowned self  or  weak self   So if a class owns a closure  and that closure captures a strong reference to that class  then you have a strong reference cycle between the closure and the class  This also includes if the class owns something that owns the closure   Specifically in the example from the video  In the example on the slide  TempNotifier owns the closure through the onChange member variable  If they did not declare self as unowned  the closure would also own self creating a strong reference cycle   Difference between unowned and weak  The difference between unowned and weak is that weak is declared as an Optional while unowned is not  By declaring it weak you get to handle the case that it might be nil inside the closure at some point  If you try to access an unowned variable that happens to be nil  it will crash the whole program  So only use unowned when you are positive that variable will always be around while the closure is around

[swift] Shall we always use [unowned self] inside closure in Swift

Examples related to swift

Examples related to automatic-ref-counting