How can I expose C++ function pointers in C? - c++

I have two types of function pointers defined in my C++ that look like this:
typedef void(*CallbackFn)(bool, std::string, py::array_t<uint8_t>&);
typedef std::function<void(std::string)> LogFunction;
Class Core{
...
void myfunc1(LogFunction lg1, CallbackFn callback, int x, std::string y);
};
and I want to be able to expose them in C but I can't seem to find a way to do so. My first try was to cast these as void* and then recast them back to their actual type. but this seems like a bad idea. So I'm clueless as how to go about this conversion.
Also the solution that I need to come-up with should be doable using C++11 at the very least.
Update:
Thank you very much for your answers. However I need to add a bit more explanation as what I'm after. I know about extern "C" and in fact the C++ functions are exposed using this already in my DLL. However, the problem I had was to pass the function pointers back and forth between the C and C++.
One way was to define function pointers in a way that can be directly usable by C. That is I needed to change for example :
typedef void(*CallbackFn)(bool, std::string, py::array_t<uint8_t>&);
typedef std::function<void(std::string)> LogFunction;
to its C compatible one :
typedef void(*CCallbackFn)(bool, char*, int, unsigned char, int length);
typedef void(*CLogFunction)(char* string, int length);
and use these instead. However, the disadvantage of doing this is that, the DLL is also used by C++ clients and this would be a hindrance to change everything C++ to be compatible by C, I'd lose the advantages of C++ by doing this.
Instead I though of coming up with a second way. The C++ stays the same, but for C linkage and interacting with other languages through C API, I do the conversion myself.
That is they use C style and then I convert this back to C++ in the implementation part. In order to further simplify this so I designed some defaults on C++ part as well. Meaning, suppose for the lack of a better example, the instance needs a callback function to log whatever happens. I define a callback function in case it was not given by the user and create two functions for C API specifically something roughly similar to this:
//in core.cpp for example
include "Core.h"
...
extern "C"
{
Core * core;
...
Core_API void* get_default_log_callback()
{
return (void*) core->SomeDefaultCallback();
}
Core_API void* set_log_callback(void* fn)
{
// convert/cast that to the c++ callback type
// CallbackFn,
core->SetCallback(fn_converted);
}
and the client could for example use the get_default_log_callback and use its return to set_log_call_back.
Basically the idea here is to be able to use the C++ already defined assets.
I was stuck at this conversion process, how to convert such callback pointers to a C compatible type ( like what I showed, it'd be really easy to just cast the pointer to void* for example and write a C wrapper that accepts void* and then recast it to the proper type.
I'd like to know about this scenario as well and whether this is a good practice or the otherwise a bad one.
Question two:
Also I'd like to know if it is possible to have a conversion from for example the CCallbackFn and CallbackFn?
Suppose I've got a function(my C function above e.g.) in a CCalbackFn form ,but I want to ultimately have it in CallbackFn form(change it and call the underlying C++ that accepts CallbackFn) ? is this possible ?

C doesn't do / cannot handle C++ name mangling (nor C++ types that are not identical to C types). You cannot use non-POD types (and plain function pointers involving types not usable in C) in anything exposed to C. And you need to use extern "C" for the exposed stuff, to disable name mangling (or rather, use whatever naming convention/mangling your current platforms C compiler uses).
In short: use extern "C" for anything that must be callable from C and make sure anything exposed that way only uses types that you can write/use in C.

You can expose a function to C by declaring it extern "C".
However, the function must only accept argument types that are valid in C.
From the look of the code above, you're going to have to express your callback in more C-like terms.

In order to expose any C++ functions to C, you should wrap the C++ calls in C functions in a plain C++ library. And export only the C functions from it. Use a common header for C functions declarations inside and outside the library. These functions will be callable from any C environment. All the C++ types wrap in a class and pass a pointer to that class across function wrappers, as a handle to C++ environment. The pointer to class should be void* or just long. And only in C++ side you will reinterpret it to own environment class.
Update 1:
You should keep C and C++ separated. It means don't do conversions between C and C++. Keep separated C versions and C++ versions of XX_log_callback functions. For instance your C++ functions uses std::string, py::array_t&. There is no way you can use it is C. No conversion available, and no way to take advantages of it in C. You can take advantage of C++ only in C++, so make a separate version for C++ only and one available for C developers.
This is a by the way. There is a technique of passing around C++ interfaces to C and back to C++. But be attentive, it uses only C compatible return and argument types. It means creating a structure with a pointer to a table of function pointers. In C++ it is an interface but in C it is a struct. This technique is used in COM/OLE2 in Windows. https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/13601/COM-in-plain-C To use such a technique you should understand very well how to make a C++ class compatible with a C struct.
Now I will just copy/paste some pieces of code from the codeproject with little explanations.
The rule of thumb when passing interfaces between C and C++, use only types compatible with C as function arguments and as return type. The first four bytes in the interface is a pointer to an array of functions, called Virtual Table:
typedef struct
{
IExampleVtbl * lpVtbl;//<-- here is the pointer to virtual table
DWORD count;//<-- here the current class data starts
char buffer[80];
} IExample;
Here you add the pointers to functions in the virtual table. The IExampleVtbl is a structure filled with pointers, and binary it is equivalent to a contiguous array of pointers
static const IExampleVtbl IExample_Vtbl = {SetString, GetString};
IExample * example;
// Allocate the class
example = (IExample *)malloc(sizeof(IExample));
example->lpVtbl = &IExample_Vtbl;//<-- here you pass the pointer to virtual functions
example->count = 1; //<-- initialize class members
example->buffer[0] = 0;
Now this is how you call the methods:
char buffer[80];
example->lpVtbl->SetString(example, "Some text");
example->lpVtbl->GetString(example, buffer, sizeof(buffer));
Keep in mind, all of above is C.
In the above example you refer explicitly the virtual table member, and also you pass it explicitly as first parameter in the functions. The C++ equivalent of call to GetString/SetString is:
example->SetString("Some text");
example->GetString(buffer, sizeof(buffer));
Here is the SetString/GetStrinf functions and the virtual table structure:
HRESULT STDMETHODCALLTYPE SetString(IExample *this, char * str)
{
memcpy(this->buffer, str, length);//be attentive, it is almost pseudocode
return(0);
}
HRESULT STDMETHODCALLTYPE GetString(IExample *this, char *buffer, int buffer_len)
{
memcpy(str, this->buffer, length);//be attentive, it is almost pseudocode
return(0);
}
typedef struct {
SetStringPtr *SetString;
GetStringPtr *GetString;
} IExampleVtbl;
The STDMETHODCALLTYPE is to make it compatible with C++ calling of member function classes, so you will be able to pass the IExample between C and C++. I believe this will be really a nightmare for the C programmers, but not an easy task for C++ counterparts.
To access that when interface is passed from C, you declare interface like this:
class IExample
{
public:
virtual HRESULT SetString(char * str) = 0;//<-- see first parameter gone away in both functions
virtual HRESULT GetString(char *buffer, int buffer_len) = 0;
};
If you implement in C++ to pass in C equivalent of above code will be:
class IExample
{
int count = 1; //<-- initialize class members
char buffer[80] = "";
public:
virtual HRESULT SetString(char * str)
{
memcpy(this->buffer, str, length);//be attentive, it is almost pseudocode
return(0);
}
virtual HRESULT GetString(char *buffer, int buffer_len)
{
memcpy(str, this->buffer, length);//be attentive, it is almost pseudocode
return(0);
}
};
One more thing. You don't use the C declaration in C++ and vice-versa. This is by the COM approach to address the issue. It might be not portable to different compilers but keep in mind, similar approach is done in the old CORBA. Only you should keep in mind. You create one interface for C and one for C++. On C++ part hide the C interface and on C hide the C++ interface. Pass around only the pointers.

I ultimately came up with my own solution which I myself refer to as "Delegating Callbacks" approach! The idea here is that, instead of directly use the C callback, you create a diversion, you create an intermediate callback that acts as a translator between the two APIs.
For example, suppose my C++ class has a method that accepts only callbacks with this signature :
typedef void(*CallbackFn)(bool, std::string, py::array_t<uint8_t>&);
And now we want to expose this to C. and this is our C callback signature :
typedef void(*CCallbackFn)(bool, const char*, unsigned char*, int rows, int cols);
Now how do we go from the first to the second one or vice versa? We create a new callback in our C++ class of type CallbackFn, and inside it execute the C callbacks. So using an indirect call, we can easily decouple the signatures between the C and C++ APIs and use the ones that are most suitable for each.
To make it more concrete we need to have something like this:
CORE_API void Core::DelegateCCallback(bool status, std::string id, py::array_t<uint8_t>& img)
{
//here is used a std::map to store my c-callbacks you can use
//vector or anything else that you like
for (auto item: this->callbackMap_c)
{
//item.first is our callback, so use it like a function
item.first(status, id.c_str(), img.mutable_data(), img.shape(0), img.shape(1));
}
}
And you update your C callback list like this, using two exposed functions, Add and Remove to add and remove any callbacks respectively :
extern "C"
{
//Core is our C++ class for example
Core* core = nullptr;
...
CORE_API void AddCallback(CCallbackFn callback)
{
core->AddCallback_C(callback);
}
CORE_API void RemoveCallback(CCallbackFn callback)
{
core->RemoveCallback_C(callback);
}
}
and back in our C++ class, AddCallback_C methods are defined like:
CORE_API void Core::AddCallback_C(CCallbackFn callback)
{
auto x = this->callbackMap_c.emplace(callback, typeid(callback).name());
}
CORE_API void Core::RemoveCallback_C(CCallbackFn callback)
{
this->callbackMap_c.erase(callback);
}
Just adding/removing the callback to the callback list. That's all.
Now when we instantiate our C++ Code, we need to add the DelegateCCallback to the callback list, so when all C++ callbacks are executed this one executes too and with it, it will loop through all the C callbacks and executes them one by one.
For example in my case, the callbacks needed to be run in a Python module, so in my constructor I had to do something like this:
CORE_API Core::Core(LogFunction logInfo)
{
//....
// add our 'Callback delegate' to the list of callbacks
// that would run.
callbackPyList.attr("append")(py::cpp_function([this](bool status, std::string id, py::array_t<uint8_t>& img)
{
this->DelegateCCallback(status, id, img);
}));
//...
}
You can get fancy with this and incorporate threads, etc as you wish.

Related

When to put a whole C++ class framework into a DLL?

I am about to write a C++ framework that will later be used by different C++ applications. The framework will provide one main class, which will be instantiated by the application. That main class will make use of some other classes within the framework. And there will be some helper classes, to be used directly by the application.
Now I am thinking of how I should encapsulate that class framework. I could write the header and source files as usual, and then include those in the applications that will make use of the framework, so that all will be compiled in one go together with the application.
But I am not sure whether this is "the best" approach in my case. Wouldn't it be an option to put the whole framework into a DLL and then link that DLL to the applications? However, I also read that it is often not the best idea to let a DLL export whole classes, and that this approach might lead to difficulties when using STL templates as data members.
Can you recommend an approach to me, maybe something else I have not mentiond above, incl. the pros and cons of all these options?
You can create a C interface using opaque pointers, which is needed in your case because of the varying types and versions of compilers involved. Note that you may not accept or return non-C types, unless you also wrap them in opaque pointers. It's not hard, but there's a bit of work needed on your behalf.
Assuming a class 'YourClass', you would create a YourClassImpl.h and YourClassImpl.cpp (if needed) containing your C++ class code.
YourClassImpl.h
class YourClass
{
private:
int value = 12345;
public:
YourClass() {}
~YourClass() {}
int getThing() { return value; }
void setThing(int newValue) { v = newValue}
};
You would then create a YourClass.h which would be your C header file (to be included by the users of your DLL), containing an opaque pointer typedef and the declarations of your C-style interface.
YourClass.h
#ifdef MAKEDLL
# define EXPORT __declspec(dllexport) __cdecl
#else
# define EXPORT __declspec(dllimport) __cdecl
#endif
extern "C"
{
typedef struct YourClass *YC_HANDLE;
EXPORT YC_HANDLE CreateYourClass();
EXPORT void DestroyYourClass(YC_HANDLE h);
EXPORT int YourClassGetThing(YC_HANDLE h);
EXPORT void YourClassSetThing(YC_HANDLE h, int v);
}
In YourClass.cpp you would define those functions.
YourClass.cpp
#include "YourClass.h"
#include "YourClassImpl.h"
extern "C"
{
EXPORT YC_HANDLE CreateYourClass()
{
return new YourClass{};
}
EXPORT void DestroyYourClass(YC_HANDLE h)
{
delete h;
}
EXPORT int YourClassGetThing(YC_HANDLE h)
{
return h->getThing();
}
EXPORT void YourClassSetThing(YC_HANDLE h, int v)
{
h->setThing(v);
}
}
In your users code they would include YourClass.h.
TheirCode.cpp
#include "YourClass.h"
int ResetValue(int newValue)
{
YC_HANDLE h = CreateYourClass();
auto v = YourClassGetThing(h);
YourClassSetThing(h, newValue);
DestroyYourClass(h);
return v;
}
The most usual way of linking to your DLL would be with LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress - I'd also advise adding a .def file to your project to ensure that the functions are named 'nicely' and are not difficult to access because of any name decoration.
Some issues to keep an eye out for:
Only the standard C fundamental types can be passed back and forth across the interface. Don't use any C++ specific types or classes.
PODs and arrays of PODs may be safe for you to use, but watch out for any packing or alignment issues.
Exceptions must not cross the interface boundaries - catch anything that gets thrown and convert it to a return code or equivalent.
Ensure that memory allocated on either side of the boundary is deallocated on the same side.

Register non-static C++ methods in Lua

I'm trying to make a small C++/Lua system where I would create my objects and attach behaviors to them in Lua. Right now I'm using LuaWrapper (a small header with basic C++ to Lua stuff), my problem is that as far as I can see Lua only let me register static class methods (or non-static functions), a little research and I figured its because the Lua typedef expects a method with only one parameter lua_State* L and non-static methods have the implicit this.
I was hoping for a way to solve this without dependency on other libraries, all I need is non-static classes/properties in Lua, so I see no reason to use LuaBind+Boost or other heavy-dependant wrappers.
LuaWrapper isn't meant to hook up directly to non-static functions in a class. I suppose it could be with some special trickery, but this is how I designed it to be used:
static int Widget_AddChild(lua_State* L)
{
Widget* parent = luaW_check<Widget>(L, 1);
Widget* child = luaW_check<Widget>(L, 2);
if (parent && child)
{
lua_pushboolean(L, parent->AddChild(child));
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
// ...
static luaL_reg Widget_metatable[] =
{
{ "AddChild", Widget_Addchild },
// ...
{ NULL, NULL }
};
I usually keep the non-lua stuff in a separate file. In this case Widget.cpp/hpp. Then I have a LuaWidget file which just contains bindings like these which I write as needed. (I also have a number of snipmate snippets to make writing these functions quick and painless. If you're using vim I'd be happy to share them)
You can make a static function that will accept an instance of the class and an argument and call that function on the instance:
void func_static(MyClass* inst, T arg) {
inst->func(arg);
}
Then register a function to call that function as a metafunction so you can do in lua
blah:x(y)
which will call the function that will receive the userdata that blah contains, as well as the argument y, and call func_static with blah and y.
You may want to look into using toLua++ (http://www.codenix.com/~tolua/).
It can parse class definitions and output a c++ code file to make the non-static class members available in Lua.
You could also take a look at LuaCppWrapper. It's intended for simple bindings only. If you want a full fledged solution, maybe OOLua or Simple Lua Binder are what you need.

Writing a C++ wrapper for a C library

I have a legacy C library, written in an OO type form. Typical functions are like:
LIB *lib_new();
void lib_free(LIB *lib);
int lib_add_option(LIB *lib, int flags);
void lib_change_name(LIB *lib, char *name);
I'd like to use this library in my C++ program, so I'm thinking a C++ wrapper is required.
The above would all seem to map to something like:
class LIB
{
public:
LIB();
~LIB();
int add_option(int flags);
void change_name(char *name);
...
};
I've never written a C++ wrapper round C before, and can't find much advice about it. Is this a good/typical/sensible approach to creating a C++/C wrapper?
A C++ wrapper is not required - you can simply call the C functions from your C++ code. IMHO, it's best not to wrap C code - if you want to turn it into C++ code - fine, but do a complete re-write.
Practically, assuming your C functions are declared in a file called myfuncs.h then in your C++ code you will want to include them like this:
extern "C" {
#include "myfuncs.h"
}
in order to give them C linkage when compiled with the C++ compiler.
I usually only write a simple RAII wrapper instead of wrapping each member function:
class Database: boost::noncopyable {
public:
Database(): handle(db_construct()) {
if (!handle) throw std::runtime_error("...");
}
~Database() { db_destruct(handle); }
operator db_t*() { return handle; }
private:
db_t* handle;
};
With the type conversion operator this can be used with the C functions:
Database db;
db_access(db, ...); // Calling a C function with db's type conversion operator
I think it only makes sense to write a wrapper if it makes the use of the library simpler. In your case, you're making it unnecessary to pass a LIB* around, and presumably it will be possible to create LIB objects on the stack, so I'd say this is an improvement.
That's generally how I would approach it. I would also not use char* but use std::string.
A C++ wrapper is not needed per se. There's nothing stopping you from calling the C functions in your code.
I'd also look at renaming LIB to something a bit better, if nothing else "Lib"
Change Name is likely to be a getter setter...
so GetName(char *) SetName(char *)
and then look at changing it to std::string instead of char*, if its SetName(const std::string name) it will accept a char* as a parameter.
ie, slowly move to C++isms
Assuming that the C library's allocation/deallocation instances are create_instance and destroy_instance, and it exposes a function called call_function, and it does not provide an API for deep copying instances, this will work:
class Wrapper
{
public:
Wrapper(): m_instance(create_instance(), destroy_instance) {}
explicit operator bool() const
{
// null check
return bool(m_instance);
}
void callFunction()
{
call_function(m_instance.get());
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<instance, decltype(&destroy_instance)> m_instance;
};

Wrapping C++ class API for C consumption

I have a set of related C++ classes which must be wrapped and exported from a DLL in such a way that it can be easily consumed by C / FFI libraries. I'm looking for some "best practices" for doing this. For example, how to create and free objects, how to handle base classes, alternative solutions, etc...
Some basic guidelines I have so far is to convert methods into simple functions with an extra void* argument representing the 'this' pointer, including any destructors. Constructors can retain their original argument list, but must return a pointer representing the object. All memory should be handled via the same set of process-wide allocation and free routines, and should be hot-swappable in a sense, either via macros or otherwise.
Foreach public method you need a C function.
You also need an opaque pointer to represent your class in the C code.
It is simpler to just use a void* though you could build a struct that contains a void* and other information (For example if you wanted to support arrays?).
Fred.h
--------------------------------
#ifdef __cplusplus
class Fred
{
public:
Fred(int x,int y);
int doStuff(int p);
};
#endif
//
// C Interface.
typedef void* CFred;
//
// Need an explicit constructor and destructor.
extern "C" CFred newCFred(int x,int y);
extern "C" void delCFred(CFred);
//
// Each public method. Takes an opaque reference to the object
// that was returned from the above constructor plus the methods parameters.
extern "C" int doStuffCFred(CFred,int p);
The the implementation is trivial.
Convert the opaque pointer to a Fred and then call the method.
CFred.cpp
--------------------------------
// Functions implemented in a cpp file.
// But note that they were declared above as extern "C" this gives them
// C linkage and thus are available from a C lib.
CFred newCFred(int x,int y)
{
return reinterpret_cast<void*>(new Fred(x,y));
}
void delCFred(CFred fred)
{
delete reinterpret_cast<Fred*>(fred);
}
int doStuffCFred(CFred fred,int p)
{
return reinterpret_cast<Fred*>(fred)->doStuff(p);
}
While Loki Astari's answer is very good, his sample code puts the wrapping code inside the C++ class. I prefer to have the wrapping code in a separate file. Also I think it is better style to prefix the wrapping C functions with the class name.
The following blog posts shows how to do that:
http://blog.eikke.com/index.php/ikke/2005/11/03/using_c_classes_in_c.html
I copied the essential part because the blog is abandoned and might finally vanish (credit to Ikke's Blog):
First we need a C++ class, using one header file (Test.hh)
class Test {
public:
void testfunc();
Test(int i);
private:
int testint;
};
and one implementation file (Test.cc)
#include <iostream>
#include "Test.hh"
using namespace std;
Test::Test(int i) {
this->testint = i;
}
void Test::testfunc() {
cout << "test " << this->testint << endl;
}
This is just basic C++ code.
Then we need some glue code. This code is something in-between C and C++. Again, we got one header file (TestWrapper.h, just .h as it doesn't contain any C++ code)
typedef void CTest;
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
CTest * test_new(int i);
void test_testfunc(const CTest *t);
void test_delete(CTest *t);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
and the function implementations (TestWrapper.cc, .cc as it contains C++ code):
#include "TestWrapper.h"
#include "Test.hh"
extern "C" {
CTest * test_new(int i) {
Test *t = new Test(i);
return (CTest *)t;
}
void test_testfunc(const CTest *test) {
Test *t = (Test *)test;
t->testfunc();
}
void test_delete(CTest *test) {
Test *t = (Test *)test;
delete t;
}
}
First, you might not need to convert all your methods to C functions. If you can simplify the API and hide some of the C++ interface, it is better, since you minimize the chance to change the C API when you change C++ logic behind.
So think of a higher level abstraction to be provided through that API. Use that void* solution you described. It looks to me the most appropriate (or typedef void* as HANDLE :) ).
Some opinions from my experience:
functions should return codes to represent errors. It's useful to have a function returning error description in string form. All other return values should be out parameters.
E.g.:
C_ERROR BuildWidget(HUI ui, HWIDGET* pWidget);
put signatures into structures/classes your handles pointer to for checking handles on validness.
E.g. your function should look like:
C_ERROR BuildWidget(HUI ui, HWIDGET* pWidget){
Ui* ui = (Ui*)ui;
if(ui.Signature != 1234)
return BAD_HUI;
}
objects should be created and released using functions exported from DLL, since memory allocation method in DLL and consuming app can differ.
E.g.:
C_ERROR CreateUi(HUI* ui);
C_ERROR CloseUi(HUI hui); // usually error codes don't matter here, so may use void
if you are allocating memory for some buffer or other data that may be required to persist outside of your library, provide size of this buffer/data. This way users can save it to disk, DB or wherever they want without hacking into your internals to find out actual size. Otherwise you'll eventually need to provide your own file I/O api which users will use only to convert your data to byte array of known size.
E.g.:
C_ERROR CreateBitmap(HUI* ui, SIZE size, char** pBmpBuffer, int* pSize);
if your objects has some typical representation outside of your C++ library, provide a mean of converting to this representation (e.g. if you have some class Image and provide access to it via HIMG handle, provide functions to convert it to and from e.g. windows HBITMAP). This will simplify integration with existing API.
E.g.
C_ERROR BitmapToHBITMAP(HUI* ui, char* bmpBuffer, int size, HBITMAP* phBmp);
Use vector (and string::c_str) to exchange data with non C++ APIs. (Guideline #78 from C++ Coding Standards, H. Sutter/ A. Alexandrescu).
PS It's not that true that "constructors can retain their original argument list". This is only true for argument types which are C-compatible.
PS2 Of course, listen to Cătălin and keep your interface as small and simple as possible.
This may be of interest: "Mixing C and C++" at the C++ FAQ Lite. Specifically [32.8] How can I pass an object of a C++ class to/from a C function?

Plain C callback function pointer as part of iPhone delegate protocol?

Trying to integrate plain C/C++ code into iPhone project as an external static library. So far so good, but now I'm stuck at a point, where I need to register library callbacks. The library should notify my iPhone application, when something happens. Seems like a good place to define a Delegate.
...but the library is expecting C function pointers for callbacks. How do I define those in Objective-C, how do I use those as part of delegate pattern?
Sorry, really can't give sample code. Here's something bit similar: first interface I got to use to register, followed by definitions of callbacks.
registerCallBack(&aCBack, &bCBack, &cCBack, &dCBack, &eCBack);
typedef void (aCBack)(uint32_t magic);
typedef void (bCBack)(const NewData* newData);
typedef void (cCBack)(uint32_t value, const std::vector<DataStuff*>* stuff);
typedef void (dCBack)(uint32_t value, const SomeData* data, const std::string text, uint32_t type);
typedef void (eCBack)(uint32_t value, const MoreData* more);
...oh btw, one of the problems is that each Objective-C class method has two hidden arguments. Not sure how to deal with that at all. Besides changing interface of that external library.
You need to use C++/C interfaces for the callbacks which then internally delegate the call to your Objective-C code. Where the callback registrations allow you to pass in user-data of sufficient size, you can conveniently pass something that identifies your context like in this answer.
Callbacks that don't get passed any context have to call a class method of your Objective-C part anyway.
You have to use plain C functions for this, but you can call through to your delegate object from them as long as you're compiling as Objective-C:
// need to have a reference to the object, of course
static DelegateClass* delegate = NULL;
// call at runtime with your actual delegate
void setCallbackDelegate ( DelegateClass* del ) { delegate = del; }
void callbackA ( uint32_t magic )
{
[delegate handleCallbackA:magic];
}
// and so on...
[Update: as gf points out, you can use a class method and avoid the need for setCallbackDelegate.]