title: Memory leak drawInRect on iOS5.0.1
body: <p>I have the following code fragment that I use to scale images. This is in a loop that creates and drains an autorelease pool for each pass. This code works fine in the simulator in iOS5.0, in iOS4.3 on iPad or simulator, but on iOS5.0.1 on an iPad1, after 50-60 passes, drawInRect starts consuming memory that never gets released. I had been calling this from a secondary thread, but now invoke the scaling operations on the main thread.</p>
  
  <pre><code>UIGraphicsBeginImageContext( newSize );
  [image drawInRect:CGRectMake(0,0,newSize.width,newSize.height)];
  UIImage* newImage = UIGraphicsGetImageFromCurrentImageContext();
  UIGraphicsEndImageContext();
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Am I doing something wrong or is this an iOS5.0.1 bug?</p>
  
  <p>Update:
  I've tried many tests. I have been able to prove that the exact same code compiled with XCode 4.0 runs fine on the same iPad. Same code compiled with XCode 4.2.1 causes an out of memory condition.
  This scaling routine is being invoked in a background thread. I wrote a different scaling routine using lower level core graphics calls. It doesn't leak with XCode 4.0 but does leak when in my application with XCode 4.2.1. The exact same routine and invocation tree run in a stand alone project does not appear to leak (much) memory on XCode 4.2.1.
  I'm waiting to hear from Apple on this one. In the mean time I need to use XCode 4. The only install image I have requires Snow Leopard which means I'm using my ancient 5.5 yr old machine.
  Thanks</p>
  
  <p>Update 1/2012
  This only seems to occur if the app is started from within XCode. Same executable started on the iPad does no exhibit the leak. A different app with the same routine does not exhibit the leak.</p>
  
  <p>I've opened a bug report with Apple and have sent them a project which reproduces the problem. I don't expect it to be resolved anytime soon, but it doesn't seem as pervasive as I originally thought.</p>
  
  <p>Update 6/2012
  Despite having sent Apple a minimal project which reproduced the problem, they claim not to be able to reproduce the problem and are not making any progress on it.</p>