When Should I Use Gc.Suppressfinalize()

When should I use GC.SuppressFinalize()?

SuppressFinalize should only be called by a class that has a finalizer. It's informing the Garbage Collector (GC) that this object was cleaned up fully.

The recommended IDisposable pattern when you have a finalizer is:

public class MyClass : IDisposable
{
    private bool disposed = false;

    protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
    {
        if (!disposed)
        {
            if (disposing)
            {
                // called via myClass.Dispose(). 
                // OK to use any private object references
            }
            // Release unmanaged resources.
            // Set large fields to null.                
            disposed = true;
        }
    }

    public void Dispose() // Implement IDisposable
    {
        Dispose(true);
        GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
    }

    ~MyClass() // the finalizer
    {
        Dispose(false);
    }
}

Normally, the CLR keeps tabs on objects with a finalizer when they are created (making them more expensive to create). SuppressFinalize tells the GC that the object was cleaned up properly and doesn't need to go onto the finalizer queue. It looks like a C++ destructor, but doesn't act anything like one.

The SuppressFinalize optimization is not trivial, as your objects can live a long time waiting on the finalizer queue. Don't be tempted to call SuppressFinalize on other objects mind you. That's a serious defect waiting to happen.

Design guidelines inform us that a finalizer isn't necessary if your object implements IDisposable, but if you have a finalizer you should implement IDisposable to allow deterministic cleanup of your class.

Most of the time you should be able to get away with IDisposable to clean up resources. You should only need a finalizer when your object holds onto unmanaged resources and you need to guarantee those resources are cleaned up.

Note: Sometimes coders will add a finalizer to debug builds of their own IDisposable classes in order to test that code has disposed their IDisposable object properly.

public void Dispose() // Implement IDisposable
{
    Dispose(true);
#if DEBUG
    GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
#endif
}

#if DEBUG
~MyClass() // the finalizer
{
    Dispose(false);
}
#endif

Why use GC.SuppressFinalize() when there is no Finalizer?

When a class does not define a Finalizer (destructor), a call to SuppressFinalize() on an instance of that class has no effect.

When you see it, it usually is a left-over of the full Disposable implementation. Just remove it or ignore it.

What's the purpose of GC.SuppressFinalize(this) in Dispose() method?

When implementing the dispose pattern you might also add a finalizer to your class that calls Dispose(). This is to make sure that Dispose() always gets called, even if a client forgets to call it.

To prevent the dispose method from running twice (in case the object already has been disposed) you add GC.SuppressFinalize(this);. The documentation provides a sample:

class MyResource : IDisposable
{
    [...]

    // This destructor will run only if the Dispose method 
    // does not get called.
    ~MyResource()      
    {
        // Do not re-create Dispose clean-up code here.
        // Calling Dispose(false) is optimal in terms of
        // readability and maintainability.
        Dispose(false);
    }

    // Implement IDisposable.
    // Do not make this method virtual.
    // A derived class should not be able to override this method.
    public void Dispose()
    {
        Dispose(true);
        // 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(this);
    }

    private void Dispose(bool disposing)
    {
        // Check to see if Dispose has already been called.
        if(!this.disposed)
        {
            // If disposing equals true, dispose all managed 
            // and unmanaged resources.
            if(disposing)
            {
                // Dispose managed resources.
                component.Dispose();
            }

            // Call the appropriate methods to clean up 
            // unmanaged resources here.
            resource.Cleanup()          
        }
        disposed = true;         
    }
}

Does GC.SuppressFinalize() have effect if the object has not Finalizer?

Its part of the dispose pattern.

Microsoft describes the dispose pattern to look like:

public void Dispose()
{
   // Dispose of unmanaged resources.
   Dispose(true);
   // Suppress finalization.
   GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}

To quote the link:

The Dispose method performs all object cleanup, so the garbage collector no longer needs to call the objects' Object.Finalize override. Therefore, the call to the SuppressFinalize method prevents the garbage collector from running the finalizer. If the type has no finalizer, the call to GC.SuppressFinalize has no effect. Note that the actual cleanup is performed by the Dispose(bool) method overload.

edit:
Looking further, with regards to DRY, I would StreamWriter.Close() just to call StreamWrite.Dispose(). Furthermore, StreamWriter.Close() seems redundant anyhow, as the base class TextWriter.Close() has the same contents! (And that one should directly call TextWrite.Dispose().
But that's just MHO.)

Confused. CA1063 is wrong? GC.SuppressFinalize(this)

If I will add the GC.SuppressFinalize() I will get rid of the CA1063
but it will cause that GC will not clean my object.

No, your objects will still be collected.

"Hey GC, do not worry about this object because I have done already all cleaning work for you!"

You're actually only saying: don't worry about the Finalizer (destructor) of this object. If it has one.

And that is where Code Analysis is getting it wrong: your class does have an IDisposable.Dispose() method but it does not have a destructor. So the warning is pointless, being over protective and triggering on the wrong reason. Disable or ignore it.

This use of GC.SuppressFinalize() doesn't feel right

This is in all likelihood a hack to solve a premature garbage collection problem. Not uncommon with unmanaged code, typical in camera applications. It is not a healthy hack, good odds that this will cause a resource leak because the finalizer doesn't execute. Wrappers for unmanaged code almost always have something to do in the finalizer, it is very common that they need to release unmanaged memory.

At issue is that the calibrationValidator object can be garbage collected while the unmanaged code is running. Having another thread in your program makes this likely since that other thread can be allocating objects and trigger a GC. This is very easy to miss by the owner of the code while testing, either by never having tested it while using multiple threads or just not getting lucky enough to trigger a GC at the wrong time.

The proper fix on your end is to ensure that the jitter marks the object in use past the call so that the garbage collector won't collect it. You do so by adding GC.KeepAlive(calibrationValidator) after the Execute() call.

Why should we call SuppressFinalize when we don't have a destructor

I'm going out on a limb here, but... most people don't need the full-blown dispose pattern. It's designed to be solid in the face of having direct access to unmanaged resources (usually via IntPtr) and in the face of inheritance. Most of the time, neither of these is actually required.

If you're just holding a reference to something else which implements IDisposable, you almost certainly don't need a finalizer - whatever holds the resource directly is responsible for dealing with that. You can make do with something like this:

public sealed class Foo : IDisposable
{
    private bool disposed;
    private FileStream stream;

    // Other code

    public void Dispose()
    {
        if (disposed)
        {
            return;
        }
        stream.Dispose();
        disposed = true;
    }
}

Note that this isn't thread-safe, but that probably won't be a problem.

By not having to worry about the possibility of subclasses holding resources directly, you don't need to suppress the finalizer (because there isn't one) - and you don't need to provide a way of subclasses customising the disposal either. Life is simpler without inheritance.

If you do need to allow uncontrolled inheritance (i.e. you're not willing to bet that subclasses will have very particular needs) then you need to go for the full pattern.

Note that with SafeHandle from .NET 2.0, it's even rarer that you need your own finalizer than it was in .NET 1.1.

---

To address your point about why there's a disposing flag in the first place: if you're running within a finalizer, other objects you refer to may already have been finalized. You should let them clean up themselves, and you should only clean up the resources you directly own.

Should GC.SuppressFinalize be called on objects that do not have a finalizer?

There is always a finalizer in IL - System.Object.Finalize() exists in every class, so if you make a custom class, it has a finalizer you want to suppress. That being said, not all objects are put on the finalization queue, so you only techncially should need to suppress finalization if you implement your own finalizer.

If you're implementing IDisposable to wrap unmanaged resources, you should include a finalizer, and you should prevent this from running, since in theory you're doing the cleanup already when Dispose is called.

---

Related Topics