Extern functions in C vs C++ - c++

In *.h header files of a C library, should one declare functions
extern void f();
// or only
void f();
when using only in C
when using from C++.

There's [almost] never any need to use the keyword extern when declaring a function, either in C or in C++. In C and in C++ all functions have external linkage by default. The strange habit of declaring functions in header files with extern probably has some historical roots, but it has been completely irrelevant for decades already.
There's one [obscure?] exception from the above in C, which is probably not directly related to what you are asking about: in C language (C99) if in some translation unit a function is defined as inline and also declared as extern (an explicit extern is used) then the inline definition of that function also serves as an external definition. If no declarations with explicit extern are present in the translation unit, then the inline definition is used as "internal" definition only.
P.S. There's such thing as extern "C" in C++, but that is a completely different matter.

In header files of a C library, should one declare functions:
extern void f();
// or only
void f();
Issue 1: Semantics
In a C++ program, the functions are declared as functions returning no value and taking no arguments.
In a C program, the functions are declared as functions returning no value and taking an indeterminate but not variable-length list of arguments.
To get the 'no arguments' meaning in C, use one of:
extern void f(void);
void f(void);
The same notation also means the same thing in C++, though for pure C++ code, using void in the argument list is not idiomatic (do not do it in pure C++ code).
Issue 2: Inter-working between C and C++
Tricky, but the normal rule would that you should declare the functions to C++ code as extern "C". To use the same source code for both, you then need to test the __cplusplus macro. You'd normally do something like:
#ifdef __cplusplus
#define EXTERN_C extern "C"
#define EXTERN_C_BEGIN extern "C" {
#define EXTERN_C_END }
#else
#define EXTERN_C /* Nothing */
#define EXTERN_C_BEGIN /* Nothing */
#define EXTERN_C_END /* Nothing */
#endif
EXTERN_C void f(void);
EXTERN_C_BEGIN
void f(void);
int g(int);
EXTERN_C_END
The options and variations are manifold, but the header can be used by both C and C++.
The macros would normally be defined in one general-purpose header that's used everywhere, and then the particular header would ensure that the general purpose header is included and then use the appropriate form of the macro.
Issue 3: Style
Formally, there is no need for the extern notation before a function declaration. However, I use it in headers to emphasize that it is a declaration of an externally defined function, and for symmetry with those (rare) occasions when there is a global variable declared in the header.
People can, and do, disagree over this; I go with the local rules — but when I'm the rule-maker, the extern is included in a header.

For general use declare as
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
void f(void);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
Otherwise, extern is obsolete.

The latter is perfectly fine, since it's only a function definition, which tells those, who include this header: 'There's a function with this prototype somewhere around here'
In this context, functions differ clearly from variables, but that's a different matter.
Make sure though, that you do not include the function body, unless you declare it 'inline' or as part of a class definition (C++) or as a 'template function' (also C++).

Specifying extern in function prototype has no effect, since it is assumed by default. Whenever a compiler sees a prototype, it assumes a function is defined somewhere else (in the current or another translation unit). This holds for both of the languages.
The following thread has some useful comments in general about extern.
Effects of the extern keyword on C functions

Related

Is there any difference, whether a struct declared in the 'extern "C"' block or not?

Let's say, I have the header file:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
struct S
{
int i;
double d;
// etc
};
// Or start the 'extern "C"' block here?..
void f(A* a);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
It should be used by C/C++ sources.
My question is: if I carry the struct A declaration out of the extern "C", whether this code will be compatible with a library which was built with the struct A declared as extern "C"?
That is, we built a library with the header as it is presented above, then we moved the extern "C" to the position marked by the corresponding comment line and, finally, we are trying to build a C++ application using the resulting header.
If all of this will be successful? In other words, if the extern "C" influence on a struct declaration?
Whether it depends what language (C/C++) the library is written on?
extern by itself declares external linkage, which is a default state for C++ functions.
Specification "C" gives C language linkage.
Only function names and variable names with external linkage have a language linkage, classes and class members are not affected. struct declaration is a class. If that file meant to be used with C code, there might be problem that older C standard do not support declaration in that format.
Specification "C" makes name conventions of externally linked entities compatible with said language, even while compatibility is implementation-dependent. E.g. for gcc your function would have C++ mangled name _Z3fooP1A, but with C it might be just _foo.

Why we should Extern "C" a struct? [duplicate]

I'm writing a C++ shared library for a C program to use. However, I have a question about extern and extern "C".
Consider the following code
My header file is like this:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" int global;
extern "C" int addnumbers(int a, int b);
#else
extern int global;
#endif
This works perfectly fine; I just have to declare
int global;
in either my .cpp or my .c file. However, what I don't understand is:
What is the difference between extern "C" and extern here? I tried commenting out extern "C" int global and it works! Why?
I know that extern "C" is used for making C linkage. That's why I have extern "C" int addnumbers(int,int). In other words, if I want to write a C++ function that is to be used in a C program, I write extern "C". Now, what about global variables - the situation is different here I guess? I want the C program to use a C++ variable named global, but I can use extern not extern "C". Why is that? This is not intuitive to me.
Comment: I don't think this is a duplicate, because I'm asking what the difference is when you use it for variables versus functions.
By attaching extern "C" to your C++ declarations (objects and functions alike) you give them "C linkage" - make them accessible from C code. If you omit this "language linkage" specification, the compiler doesn't do any effort to do proper linkage. In the case of functions, this results in failed linkage, because of mangling. In the case of global variables, everything might work fine, because variables don't need mangling.
However, on my system (MS Visual Studio), linkage between C and C++ doesn't work if I "forget" to specify the extern "C" linkage specification in the C++ header file. Example error message:
error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "int global" (?_global)
While, when I examine a compiled C++ source code that contains the definition of global with the dumpbin utility, I see
00B 00000014 SECT4 notype External | ?global##3HA (int global)
So MS Visual Studio mangles the names of global variables, unless they have C linkage - this makes C linkage specifications mandatory.
In addition, consider the following example:
namespace example {
int global;
}
If the global variable is inside a namespace, C code will not get access to it. In this case, all compilers will require the proper linkage specification on the C++ declaration:
namespace example {
extern "C" int global;
}
Conclusion:
Use extern "C" when you want C linkage - doesn't matter if it's a function or a global variable. If it's a global variable, it may work regardless, but it's not guaranteed (and may be dangerous).
extern simply tells the compiler that the next variable(global) may not have been declared yet, but it is declared as global in a different translation unit, and during the linking stage the symbol "global" will be associated with an area in the memory.
while extern "C" is, as a few people commented, is used to solve the issue of name mangling in C++, this function will be known as addnumbers_i_i (or something similar) by the linker, while in c its symbol is addnumbers
"C++ has a special keyword to declare a function with C bindings: extern "C". A function declared as extern "C" uses the function name as symbol name, just as a C function. For that reason, only non-member functions can be declared as extern "C", and they cannot be overloaded."
There is no standard in C++ for function names generated by compiler. Keyword extern "C" instructs compiler to generate function name in C standard.
I find that extern "C" is used to make the C++ function compiled in C standard and it don't do with variables, for the solutions of function name in C and C++ are different. Such as "void foo( int x, int y )", C compiler will translate it into "_foo", while C++ compiler will translate it into "_foo_int_int".

extern "C" with class and DLL

I was presented with a C++ DLL source code that uses extern "C":
extern "C"
{
class Something
{
public:
__declspec(dllexport) Something();
__declspec(dllexport) virtual ~Something();
__declspec(dllexport) bool function_one(const char * some_text);
static __declspec(dllexport) char * get_version();
private:
unsigned int m_data;
};
}
The DLL is being called by a C++ program.
FYI, using Visual Studio 2017 on Windows 7 platform.
Questions *(all related to the extern "C" and class):
Since class is not C language, will this be equivalent to a
struct?
Are constructors valid?
Are virtual destructors valid (since C doesn't have virtual)?
How is the bool handled?
How is static treated inside the extern "C" for the class?
How is private data handled inside the extern "C" block?
How is noexcept handled in an extern "C" block for the
constructor?
The Visual Studio 2017 compiler is not generating any errors or warnings with the above code.
The VS2017 code analyzer only generates a warning for the constructor:
C26439 This kind of function may not throw. Declare it 'noexcept' (f.6).
Research:
The questions on StackOverflow related to this issue mention that the "extern "C"has the effect of resolving name mangling. However, they don't address the issues ofvirtual,bool`, private data, and etc. as I listed above.
Also, many DLLs related answers recommend not using non-POD structures because the layout may change between compilers (including same versions of compilers); so for example, character arrays are preferred over std::string.
It doesn't change the code to be C. It causes no C++ name mangling to be done - so you cannot overload functions exposed as extern "C" inside that block, for example, but the code is still C++.
You are just restricted from doing stuff that would not be callable from C (in the extern "C" block). You are exposing a C API but you can still use C++ behind the scenes. Just not in your extern "C" part of the interface.
This also means that you cannot export member functions (virtual or not) as extern "C" because C has no such thing.

extern and extern "C" for variables

I'm writing a C++ shared library for a C program to use. However, I have a question about extern and extern "C".
Consider the following code
My header file is like this:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" int global;
extern "C" int addnumbers(int a, int b);
#else
extern int global;
#endif
This works perfectly fine; I just have to declare
int global;
in either my .cpp or my .c file. However, what I don't understand is:
What is the difference between extern "C" and extern here? I tried commenting out extern "C" int global and it works! Why?
I know that extern "C" is used for making C linkage. That's why I have extern "C" int addnumbers(int,int). In other words, if I want to write a C++ function that is to be used in a C program, I write extern "C". Now, what about global variables - the situation is different here I guess? I want the C program to use a C++ variable named global, but I can use extern not extern "C". Why is that? This is not intuitive to me.
Comment: I don't think this is a duplicate, because I'm asking what the difference is when you use it for variables versus functions.
By attaching extern "C" to your C++ declarations (objects and functions alike) you give them "C linkage" - make them accessible from C code. If you omit this "language linkage" specification, the compiler doesn't do any effort to do proper linkage. In the case of functions, this results in failed linkage, because of mangling. In the case of global variables, everything might work fine, because variables don't need mangling.
However, on my system (MS Visual Studio), linkage between C and C++ doesn't work if I "forget" to specify the extern "C" linkage specification in the C++ header file. Example error message:
error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "int global" (?_global)
While, when I examine a compiled C++ source code that contains the definition of global with the dumpbin utility, I see
00B 00000014 SECT4 notype External | ?global##3HA (int global)
So MS Visual Studio mangles the names of global variables, unless they have C linkage - this makes C linkage specifications mandatory.
In addition, consider the following example:
namespace example {
int global;
}
If the global variable is inside a namespace, C code will not get access to it. In this case, all compilers will require the proper linkage specification on the C++ declaration:
namespace example {
extern "C" int global;
}
Conclusion:
Use extern "C" when you want C linkage - doesn't matter if it's a function or a global variable. If it's a global variable, it may work regardless, but it's not guaranteed (and may be dangerous).
extern simply tells the compiler that the next variable(global) may not have been declared yet, but it is declared as global in a different translation unit, and during the linking stage the symbol "global" will be associated with an area in the memory.
while extern "C" is, as a few people commented, is used to solve the issue of name mangling in C++, this function will be known as addnumbers_i_i (or something similar) by the linker, while in c its symbol is addnumbers
"C++ has a special keyword to declare a function with C bindings: extern "C". A function declared as extern "C" uses the function name as symbol name, just as a C function. For that reason, only non-member functions can be declared as extern "C", and they cannot be overloaded."
There is no standard in C++ for function names generated by compiler. Keyword extern "C" instructs compiler to generate function name in C standard.
I find that extern "C" is used to make the C++ function compiled in C standard and it don't do with variables, for the solutions of function name in C and C++ are different. Such as "void foo( int x, int y )", C compiler will translate it into "_foo", while C++ compiler will translate it into "_foo_int_int".

Call C++ nonmember function from C

I want to pass the pointer of an instance of a template function to a C function as callback. And It's obviously impossible to declare the template in extern "C".
Is it guaranteed that C++ uses the same calling convention with C for nonmember function? And is there any other effect of declaring a function in extern "C" besides it prevents incompatible name mangling?
Its a bad idea to export C++ methods or template functions directly for a C library. If I have a C++ program then I usually put the C bindings into its separate .cpp + .h file pair and I surround the header file with and extern "C" block and I use only C compatible function declarations there. In the accompanying .cpp file you implement the functions and since its a .cpp file you can access C++ features (templates, classes, ...) in the actual implementation of the binding functions even if their signature is C compatible using C-friendly types.
In your case this case you should put a C binding function into this binder .cpp+.h file and from the implementation of that function you would be able to call an instance of the specified template function easily.
Simple stupid example:
CBindings.h:
// This is the header used by both C++ and C
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
// C compatible function declarations with C-friendly types.
int int_from_string(const char* s);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
CBindings.cpp:
#include "CBindings.h"
#include "WhateverCPPHeader.h"
int int_from_string(const char* s)
{
// Since the implementation is in a .cpp file here we can do C++ish things.
return FromString<int>(s);
}
WhateverCPPHeader.h:
// Somewhere in your C++ header files:
template <typename T>
T FromString(const std::string& s);
...
// Template specializations of FromString for several T types
...
Whatever.c:
#include "CBindings.h"
#include <stdio.h>
void my_c_func(void)
{
int i = int_from_string("5");
printf("%d\n", i);
}
This works on all platforms without problems and the cut between C/C++ is clearly separated into its own file.
No. It's not guaranteed that it uses the same calling convention. You can use the calling convention modifiers like _stdcall, cdecl, pascal, etc. So you have to make sure that both sides know the same calling convention.
One way would be detecting the mangled name and define a proper prototype for the C function.
Consider changing the design; since you can't benefit from the template in C anyway, you can define a simple C++ function (defined extern "C") that calls the templated function.