I've read several times that passing STL objects like vector and string outside of a DLL boundary is bad practice because different compiler versions can generate different code for STL objects. Therefore, you should design a C-style interface and not pass STL objects at all. However, there are still some things unclear to me:
1. What is the 'boundary' of a DLL?
Is it right to say, that the boundary is where code is beeing compiled on DLL side? What if I define a .h file inside a DLL (f.e. to write a factory class) and use that header file in a different project? Is that .h file inside or outside the boundary of the DLL and why?
2. What is contained in a DLL?
Let' say I have a class Foo:
class Foo
{
public:
__declspec(dllexport) void f1(); //instantiates v1 inside function
private:
unique_ptr<vector<int>> v1 = nullptr;
}
If I only mark the function f1() with __declspec(dllexport), only this function should be contained in the DLL. How does the code inside f1() know what v1 is if v1 isn't contained in the DLL?
3. Passing objects out of a DLL-boundary using unique_ptr
I'm using unique_ptr almost everytime in my project. From what I understand, returning a unique_ptr from a DLL would be bad practice because unique_ptr is an STL object. How can I instantiate an object inside the DLL and return a unique_ptr to it?
4. Why does defining interfaces or using PIMPL help to define an DLL interface?
I still have to convert my STL classes to C-style objects. And in the project using the DLL, I would have to somehow wrap the C-style objects inside STL classes again. I don't see any advantage of using interfaces or PIMPL in this case.
Also, if I define an interface (class with pure virtual functions), wouldn't this have the same effect as just declaring the functions in my class with __declspec(dllexport)?
class IFoo
{
public:
virtual ~IFoo() = 0 {};
virtual void f1() = 0;
}
class Foo : public IFoo
{
public:
void f1();
//__declspec(dllexport) void f1(); //why use an interface if I can just declare the functions like this?
}
How is the DLL-STL problematic solved in modern C++ 11/14 libraries? Are there any modern open-source libraries that I can have a look at?
Unfortunately STL types aren't consistent across compilers. Even different versions of Visual Studio have differences.
The boundary is where the code is compiled. If you have an implementation in a header file in your library, then the compiler used to compile the EXE will compile the code. This is potentially very bad because what the code in the EXE thinks is the data is different to what the code in the DLL thinks is the data. (You need to look out for differences like this especially if you have #ifs in a struct definition and you need to be explicit about packing).
The only way to be sure is to define all your own types (being careful of packing) and not use STL. This is what DLL libraries usually do.
Interfaces can enable the user to dynamically link to the library. Using __declspec(dllexport) requires a static linking; that is the EXE has to link to the .lib generated when you compiled the DLL to be able to access all the functions. This means amongst other things you can't update the DLL without the EXE having to be recompiled (probably - you can get away with this in some circumstances, but it's not a good idea).
By dynamically linking you can update the DLL or add functionality to the DLL without relinking the EXE as long as you don't change your interfaces. The EXE might call LoadLibrary() on the DLL and GetProcAddress() to access one function that returns an interface. Everything else including data types passed as parameters are interfaces (i.e. contain only pure virtual functions) or simple structs. This is how the basic level of COM works.
To answer question 2, when you declare something as __declspec(dllexport) you are stating that this is part of the interface to the DLL - something that is accessible to the component that loads the DLL. Anything declared without __declspec(dllexport) should be present within the DLL but will not be available to be called/used by an external component.
I have unmanaged, template class for thread safe queue:
template<class T>
public class TSQueue {...}
And Producer class:
public ref class Producer
{
Producer(TSQueue<int>* Q) {...}
};
Producer is used in following way:
Producer^ p = gcnew Producer(new TSQueue<int>());
Both are defined in one C++/CLI DLL Producer.DLL.
When Producer is instantiated and provided with TSQueue< int >* inside this DLL, there are no problems with compilation and execution.
But, when I try to instantiate Producer with TSQueue< int >* in another, C++/CLI dll I am having the following compiler error:
Error 23 error C2664: 'Producer(TSQueue<int>*)' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'TSQueue<T> *' to 'TSQueue<int> *'
As if compiler cannot determine the type of Q I provide to Producer constructor.
I have added reference to Producer.DLL.
Does anyone know how to overcome this problem.
IMO, adding reference to the DLL isn't enough since we are dealing here w/ "native" templates and not w/ generics.
Please make sure that your other DLL has a #include directive to the header of TSQueue
You need to include the complete definition of TSQueue in both libraries. Don't make it part of the interface use it only internally. If it needs to be a part of the API, follow the advice from Hans Passant: make it a generic, or better, use the proper framework implementation.
As Hans Passant sad:
Fairly sure you have a type identity problem here, induced by having a native C++ template cross a module boundary. That's in general a notorious problem in C++, templates don't have external linkage. It is easy to solve in C++/CLI by using generics, you should have a drop-in replacement for TSQueue from the .NET Queue<> class, ConcurrentQueue<> if it needs to be thread-safe.
But the generics cannot be used for unmanaged types, so I am using type specific unmanaged container class.
I have a C++ class that I need to create several instances of in a C# application. Apparently this means I'll need to make a C++/CLI wrapper as you can't import C++ classes into C#, but I've never used it before. The C++ class inherits from a base class which just contains several pure virtual functions, and no data. The DLL exports just one function which creates a new instance of the class and returns a pointer to the base class.
What C++/CLI type can be used to call that function and get the pointer to the C++ class, but which can also be imported into C#?
Thanks.
You don't need any special “C++/CLI type”, you should be able to call that function like from normal C++. But if you want to use the C++ class from C#, you really need to write C++/CLI managed wrapper class that you will be able to use from C#.
The managed wrapper class will contain a filed with a pointer to the unmanaged class. It will also contain the same members as the unmanaged class, that forward to their unmanaged equivalents.
For an example of how to do that, see How to: Wrap Native Class for Use by C# on MSDN.
I created a VB.NET DLL file which I am using in an unmanaged C++ project.
When I try to create an object of the class, I am getting an error:
cannot instantiate abstract class
Why would my class be abstract? How can I modify it so that it won't be abstract?
That's not how it works, you have to write COM code in C++ to use it. Take a good look at the #import directive and the smart pointers it creates.
This question is related to "How to make consistent dll binaries across VS versions ?"
We have applications and DLLs built
with VC6 and a new application built
with VC9. The VC9-app has to use
DLLs compiled with VC6, most of
which are written in C and one in
C++.
The C++ lib is problematic due to
name decoration/mangling issues.
Compiling everything with VC9 is
currently not an option as there
appear to be some side effects.
Resolving these would be quite time
consuming.
I can modify the C++ library, however it must be compiled with VC6.
The C++ lib is essentially an OO-wrapper for another C library. The VC9-app uses some static functions as well as some non-static.
While the static functions can be handled with something like
// Header file
class DLL_API Foo
{
int init();
}
extern "C"
{
int DLL_API Foo_init();
}
// Implementation file
int Foo_init()
{
return Foo::init();
}
it's not that easy with the non-static methods.
As I understand it, Chris Becke's suggestion of using a COM-like interface won't help me because the interface member names will still be decorated and thus inaccessible from a binary created with a different compiler. Am I right there?
Would the only solution be to write a C-style DLL interface using handlers to the objects or am I missing something?
In that case, I guess, I would probably have less effort with directly using the wrapped C-library.
The biggest problem to consider when using a DLL compiled with a different C++ compiler than the calling EXE is memory allocation and object lifetime.
I'm assuming that you can get past the name mangling (and calling convention), which isn't difficult if you use a compiler with compatible mangling (I think VC6 is broadly compatible with VS2008), or if you use extern "C".
Where you'll run into problems is when you allocate something using new (or malloc) from the DLL, and then you return this to the caller. The caller's delete (or free) will attempt to free the object from a different heap. This will go horribly wrong.
You can either do a COM-style IFoo::Release thing, or a MyDllFree() thing. Both of these, because they call back into the DLL, will use the correct implementation of delete (or free()), so they'll delete the correct object.
Or, you can make sure that you use LocalAlloc (for example), so that the EXE and the DLL are using the same heap.
Interface member names will not be decorated -- they're just offsets in a vtable. You can define an interface (using a C struct, rather than a COM "interface") in a header file, thusly:
struct IFoo {
int Init() = 0;
};
Then, you can export a function from the DLL, with no mangling:
class CFoo : public IFoo { /* ... */ };
extern "C" IFoo * __stdcall GetFoo() { return new CFoo(); }
This will work fine, provided that you're using a compiler that generates compatible vtables. Microsoft C++ has generated the same format vtable since (at least, I think) MSVC6.1 for DOS, where the vtable is a simple list of pointers to functions (with thunking in the multiple-inheritance case). GNU C++ (if I recall correctly) generates vtables with function pointers and relative offsets. These are not compatible with each other.
Well, I think Chris Becke's suggestion is just fine. I would not use Roger's first solution, which uses an interface in name only and, as he mentions, can run into problems of incompatible compiler-handling of abstract classes and virtual methods. Roger points to the attractive COM-consistent case in his follow-on.
The pain point: You need to learn to make COM interface requests and deal properly with IUnknown, relying on at least IUnknown:AddRef and IUnknown:Release. If the implementations of interfaces can support more than one interface or if methods can also return interfaces, you may also need to become comfortable with IUnknown:QueryInterface.
Here's the key idea. All of the programs that use the implementation of the interface (but don't implement it) use a common #include "*.h" file that defines the interface as a struct (C) or a C/C++ class (VC++) or struct (non VC++ but C++). The *.h file automatically adapts appropriately depending on whether you are compiling a C Language program or a C++ language program. You don't have to know about that part simply to use the *.h file. What the *.h file does is define the Interface struct or type, lets say, IFoo, with its virtual member functions (and only functions, no direct visibility to data members in this approach).
The header file is constructed to honor the COM binary standard in a way that works for C and that works for C++ regardless of the C++ compiler that is used. (The Java JNI folk figured this one out.) This means that it works between separately-compiled modules of any origin so long as a struct consisting entirely of function-entry pointers (a vtable) is mapped to memory the same by all of them (so they have to be all x86 32-bit, or all x64, for example).
In the DLL that implements the the COM interface via a wrapper class of some sort, you only need a factory entry point. Something like an
extern "C" HRESULT MkIFooImplementation(void **ppv);
which returns an HRESULT (you'll need to learn about those too) and will also return a *pv in a location you provide for receiving the IFoo interface pointer. (I am skimming and there are more careful details that you'll need here. Don't trust my syntax) The actual function stereotype that you use for this is also declared in the *.h file.
The point is that the factory entry, which is always an undecorated extern "C" does all of the necessary wrapper class creation and then delivers an Ifoo interface pointer to the location that you specify. This means that all memory management for creation of the class, and all memory management for finalizing it, etc., will happen in the DLL where you build the wrapper. This is the only place where you have to deal with those details.
When you get an OK result from the factory function, you have been issued an interface pointer and it has already been reserved for you (there is an implicit IFoo:Addref operation already performed on behalf of the interface pointer you were delivered).
When you are done with the interface, you release it with a call on the IFoo:Release method of the interface. It is the final release implementation (in case you made more AddRef'd copies) that will tear down the class and its interface support in the factory DLL. This is what gets you correct reliance on a consistent dynamic stoorage allocation and release behind the interface, whether or not the DLL containing the factory function uses the same libraries as the calling code.
You should probably implement IUnknown:QueryInterface (as method IFoo:QueryInterface) too, even if it always fails. If you want to be more sophisticated with using the COM binary interface model as you have more experience, you can learn to provide full QueryInterface implementations.
This is probably too much information, but I wanted to point out that a lot of the problems you are facing about heterogeneous implementations of DLLs are resolved in the definition of the COM binary interface and even if you don't need all of it, the fact that it provides worked solutions is valuable. In my experience, once you get the hang of this, you will never forget how powerful this can be in C++ and C++ interop situations.
I haven't sketched the resources you might need to consult for examples and what you have to learn in order to make *.h files and to actually implement factory-function wrappers of the libraries you want to share. If you want to dig deeper, holler.
There are other things you need to consider too, such as which run-times are being used by the various libraries. If no objects are being shared that's fine, but that seems quite unlikely at first glance.
Chris Becker's suggestions are pretty accurate - using an actual COM interface may help you get the binary compatibility you need. Your mileage may vary :)
not fun, man. you are in for a lot of frustration, you should probably give this:
Would the only solution be to write a
C-style DLL interface using handlers
to the objects or am I missing
something? In that case, I guess, I
would probably have less effort with
directly using the wrapped C-library.
a really close look. good luck.