I have code that looks like this:
extern "C" __declspec(dllexport) myInterface(int id, void** pFunction)
{
...
}
I need to make the void** pFunction argument point to a function so that the caller can use this function via the pFunction pointer. This function gets called through a DLL, I don't want to do it this way but for a lot of reasons I have no choice. I know that COM is made for this but I can not use it, the reasons come down to management.
At this point I have no idea how to do this, everything I have tried to do gives me cast problems. Do anyone have any idea how I can do this? I can post more if this is unclear.
Thanks.
If you are looking at the implementation of 'myInterface', then you might be wanting:
switch (id)
{
case FUNC_1:
*pFunction = (void *)first_function;
break;
...
}
If you are trying to call the function and pass in a pointer to function, then:
void *vp = (void *)the_function_to_pass;
myInterface(1, &vp);
If you have something else in mind, you need to specify what.
(Note that strictly, C does not guarantee that function pointers can be assigned to object pointers and vice versa. However, POSIX does make that guarantee for you. I believe similar comments apply to C++.)
As Jonathan Leffler and David Thornley mentioned, you aren't guaranteed that a function pointer can be converted to void* and back. A portable workaround would be to package the function pointer into a struct and to pass a pointer to that.
(Be aware that void** itself might have its own issues. You can avoid this too.)
For example:
typedef int (*SomeFuncType)(int);
struct FuncWrapper
{
SomeFuncType func;
void* output;
};
...
FuncWrapper funcWrapper;
funcWrapper.func = ...;
myInterface(id, &funcWrapper);
and then myInterface could be implemented as:
void myInterface(int id, FuncWrapper* funcWrapper)
{
funcWrapper->func(...);
funcWrapper->output = ...;
}
This is not something that can be done in standard C or C++. There is no guarantee that a function pointer can fit into a void pointer (C++ member function pointers typically can't). In other words, if you can't change the function signature, you can't do what you want in standard C or C++, and there's no guarantee you can do it at all.
Therefore, any solution would be a platform-specific one. You don't specify a platform directly in question or tag, but my guess would be Visual C++ from other things.
Please specify your platform specifically, and anything useful about the function pointer you want to pass.
It's tricksy, but I've had good luck with code like so:
*reinterpret_cast<void**>( &(PVOID&)( DetourFunc ) ) = (PVOID) 0x00FFFF00;
The concept, as I understand it, is you're referencing a reference, reinterpreting the reference, then dereferencing it. Bit confusing, but I can verify it works. You can also put an address on the right side (&func) and it'll work. Calling DetourFunc, using the form:
(DetourFunc)(param, param)
will call the original address or function.
Edit: This works, but it seems like a pretty heavy abuse of the language. It does work, though, and has been recommended in a few other questions here.
I want to thank everyone for help. Here is how I get it to work at least in part. Basically the wrapper idea works.
struct myProj
{
virtual HRESULT __stdcall myMethod(unsigned short* & myname);
};
HRESULT __stdcall myMethod(unsigned short* & myname)
{
myname = L"myname";
return(1);
}
struct myProj xProject;
To call it:
extern "C" HRESULT __declspec(dllexport) fInterface(UINT id, LPVOID * pObj)
{
switch(id)
{
case FVI_ID:
*pObj = &xProject;
break;
}
}
This does call the correct function, but it still has it's problems. The third party DLL uses CStrings and I suspect they are giving my other problems as well as some trace functions they contain.
I believe my real solution is I can't fake out the com, that we need to realize the DLL's can not be used in our project.
Thanks everyone.
Related
Consider the following code:
file_1.hpp:
typedef void (*func_ptr)(void);
func_ptr file1_get_function(void);
file1.cpp:
// file_1.cpp
#include "file_1.hpp"
static void some_func(void)
{
do_stuff();
}
func_ptr file1_get_function(void)
{
return some_func;
}
file2.cpp
#include "file1.hpp"
void file2_func(void)
{
func_ptr function_pointer_to_file1 = file1_get_function();
function_pointer_to_file1();
}
While I believe the above example is technically possible - to call a function with internal linkage only via a function pointer, is it bad practice to do so? Could there be some funky compiler optimizations that take place (auto inline, for instance) that would make this situation problematic?
There's no problem, this is fine. In fact , IMHO, it is a good practice which lets your function be called without polluting the space of externally visible symbols.
It would also be appropriate to use this technique in the context of a function lookup table, e.g. a calculator which passes in a string representing an operator name, and expects back a function pointer to the function for doing that operation.
The compiler/linker isn't allowed to make optimizations which break correct code and this is correct code.
Historical note: back in C89, externally visible symbols had to be unique on the first 6 characters; this was relaxed in C99 and also commonly by compiler extension.
In order for this to work, you have to expose some portion of it as external and that's the clue most compilers will need.
Is there a chance that there's a broken compiler out there that will make mincemeat of this strange practice because they didn't foresee someone doing it? I can't answer that.
I can only think of false reasons to want to do this though: Finger print hiding, which fails because you have to expose it in the function pointer decl, unless you are planning to cast your way around things, in which case the question is "how badly is this going to hurt".
The other reason would be facading callbacks - you have some super-sensitive static local function in module m and you now want to expose the functionality in another module for callback purposes, but you want to audit that so you want a facade:
static void voodoo_function() {
}
fnptr get_voodoo_function(const char* file, int line) {
// you tagged the question as C++, so C++ io it is.
std::cout << "requested voodoo function from " << file << ":" << line << "\n";
return voodoo_function;
}
...
// question tagged as c++, so I'm using c++ syntax
auto* fn = get_voodoo_function(__FILE__, __LINE__);
but that's not really helping much, you really want a wrapper around execution of the function.
At the end of the day, there is a much simpler way to expose a function pointer. Provide an accessor function.
static void voodoo_function() {}
void do_voodoo_function() {
// provide external access to voodoo
voodoo_function();
}
Because here you provide the compiler with an optimization opportunity - when you link, if you specify whole program optimization, it can detect that this is a facade that it can eliminate, because you let it worry about function pointers.
But is there a really compelling reason not just to remove the static from infront of voodoo_function other than not exposing the internal name for it? And if so, why is the internal name so precious that you would go to these lengths to hide that?
static void ban_account_if_user_is_ugly() {
...;
}
fnptr do_that_thing() {
ban_account_if_user_is_ugly();
}
vs
void do_that_thing() { // ban account if user is ugly
...
}
--- EDIT ---
Conversion. Your function pointer is int(*)(int) but your static function is unsigned int(*)(unsigned int) and you don't want to have to cast it.
Again: Just providing a facade function would solve the problem, and it will transform into a function pointer later. Converting it to a function pointer by hand can only be a stumbling block for the compiler's whole program optimization.
But if you're casting, lets consider this:
// v1
fnptr get_fn_ptr() {
// brute force cast because otherwise it's 'hassle'
return (fnptr)(static_fn);
}
int facade_fn(int i) {
auto ui = static_cast<unsigned int>(i);
auto result = static_fn(ui);
return static_cast<int>(result);
}
Ok unsigned to signed, not a big deal. And then someone comes along and changes what fnptr needs to be to void(int, float);. One of the above becomes a weird runtime crash and one becomes a compile error.
My purpose is to call some C function from my C++ code and pass some C++ objects.
In fact I am using a integration routine from the GSL libray(written in C), see this link,
My code snippet:
// main.cpp
#include <stdio.h>
#include <gsl/gsl_integration.h>
#include <myclass.h>
/* my test function. */
double testfunction ( double x , void *param ) {
myclass *bar=static_cast<myclass*>(param);
/*** do something with x and bar***/
return val;
}
int main ( int argc , char *argv[] ) {
gsl_function F; // defined in GSL: double (* function) (double x, void * params)
/* initialize.*/
gsl_integration_cquad_workspace *ws =
gsl_integration_cquad_workspace_alloc( 200 ) ;
/* Prepare test function. */
myclass foo{}; // call myclass constructor
F.function = &testfunction;
F.params = &foo;
/* Call the routine. */
gsl_integration_cquad( &F, 0.0,1.0,1.0e-10,1.0e-10,ws, &res,&abserr,&neval);
/* Free the workspace. */
gsl_integration_cquad_workspace_free( ws );
return 0;
}
In my case, direct calling gsl_integration_cquad seems OK, provided the header includes sth like "ifdef __cplusplus", my concern is about the callback F,originally defined in C, am I allowed to pass the testfunction and also the C++ foo object in this way ? .
or is there any better way to do this kind of stuff, maybe overloading and use a functor?
P.S. Am I allowed to do exeption handling within the callback function? (use try catch inside "testfunction"). It works in my case but not sure if it's legal.
I'm not familiar with the library in question, but in general,
when passing a pointer to a callback and a void* to
a C routine, which will call the callback back with the void*,
there are two things you need to do to make it safe:
The function whose address you pass must be declared extern "C".
You'll get away with not doing this with a lot of compilers, but
it isn't legal, and a good compiler will complain.
The type you convert to the void* must be exactly the same
type as the type you cast it back to in the callback. The
classic error is to pass something like new Derived to the
C function, and cast it back to Base* in the callback. The
round trip Derived*→void*→Base* is undefined
behavior. It will work some of the time, but at other times, it
may crash, or cause any number of other problems.
And as cdhowie pointed out in a comment, you don't want to
allow exceptions to propagate accross the C code. Again, it
might work. But it might not.
For the exact example you posted, the only thing you need to do
is to declare testfunction as extern "C", and you're all
right. If you later start working with polymorphic objects,
however, beware of the second point.
You can use
myclass *bar=static_cast<myclass*>(param);
with void*.
If you meant something like transporting a c++ class pointer through a c callback's void* pointer, yes it's safe to do a static_cast<>.
There's no kind of losing c++ specific attributes of this class pointer, when passed through c code. Though passing a derived class pointer, and static casting back to the base class, won't work properly as #James Kanze pointed out.
The void* will likely just be passed trough by the C library without looking at the pointed-to data, so it's not a problem if this contains a C++ class. As log as you cast the void* to the correctly there shouldn't be any problems.
To make sure the callback function itself is compatible, you can declare it as extern "C". Additionally you should make sure that no exceptions are thrown from the callback function, since the C code calling the callback won't expect those.
All together I would split up the code into one function that does the real work and another function that is used as the callback and handles the interface with the C library, for example like this:
#include <math.h>
double testfunction ( double x ,myclass *param ) {
/*** do something with x and bar***/
return val;
}
extern "C" double testfunction_callback ( double x , void *param ) {
try {
myclass *bar=reinterpret_cast<myclass*>(param);
return testfunction(x, bar);
}
catch(...) {
std::cerr << "Noooo..." << std::endl;
return NAN;
}
}
I'm having some trouble making a callback wrapper class method that needs to be used by a third party library; the JackAudio library.
I have been able to make a wrapper for a JackAudio callback function that needs two arguments.
I'm just having trouble creating a callback function for a particular function that needs a const char * as an argument.
So far I have been able to make the JackAudio library jack_set_sample_rate_callback function use a custom class and can be executed like so:
SoundClass Sound;
SoundClass * SoundPointer = &Sound;
jack_set_sample_rate_callback(
client,
SoundClass::SampleRateCallbackWrapper,
SoundPointer
);
And the class looks something like this:
SoundClass
{
int SampleRateCallback( jack_nframes_t nframes )
{
//executes some code when called.
}
static int SampleRateCallbackWrapper( jack_nframes_t nframes, void * arg )
{
return static_cast < SoundClass* > ( arg )->SampleRateCallback( nframes );
}
};
All of the above works well, with no issues.
The problem I'm having now is with the JackAudio callback function jack_set_error_function
This is what I tried:
static void ErrorCallbackWrapper( const char * arg )
{
return static_cast < SoundClass*>( arg )->SomeErrorFunction();
}
But I get error: invalid static_cast from type ‘const char*’ to type ‘SoundClass*’
I get the gist why this is happening, I just have no idea what to do for a solution.
Thanks in advance for any help guys.
Assuming the Jack API is written for the C language, there is a formal problem already with the working callback that you have. Namely that it then needs to be extern "C", and that as a static member function it cannot be. So formally it needs to be a free-standing function.
The documentation that you link to for the jack_set_error_function gives this signature, presumably expressed in C:
void jack_set_error_function( void(*)(const char *) func);
For C++ the callback must be assumed to be extern "C", so,
extern "C" void MyErrorFunction( char const* errorMessage )
{
// Whatever, e.g. post a message to the GUI event queue, or terminate.
}
If you want this function to in turn call a method on an object, then unless the library provides some special mechanism to help you, you will just have to use one of the following techniques:
a namespace scope variable accessed by the callback, or
a dynamically generated callback.
C++ does not as of yet support the second approach, at all, so the first one is strongly indicated – if you want a callback on a method of an object.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to mention,
the function declarations in the API documentation are syntactically invalid.
E.g. the documentation’s signature
void jack_set_info_function( void(*)(const char *) func );
simply won’t compile with a standard-conforming compiler. Not as C, and not as C++. It’s syntactically invalid in both languages.
Instead it should be
void jack_set_info_function( void(*func)(const char *) );
Since the documentation apparently is generated by DOxygen, it stands to reason that it's been generated from source code that compiles. If so then this is a bug in DOxygen, and a problem with the quality assurance of the library provider. However it might be a problem that lies solely with the library provider, or, I might be mistaken in the assumption that this is a C library?
this is my first question after long time checking on this marvelous webpage.
Probably my question is a little silly but I want to know others opinion about this. What is better, to create several specific methods or, on the other hand, only one generic method? Here is an example...
unsigned char *Method1(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand1Struct *params)
{
if(params == NULL) return NULL;
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
return buffer; // buffer is a member of the class
}
unsigned char *Method2(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand2Struct *params)
{
...
}
unsigned char *Method3(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand3Struct *params)
{
...
}
unsigned char *Method4(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand4Struct *params)
{
...
}
or
unsigned char *Method(CommandTypeEnum command, void *params)
{
switch(command)
{
case CMD_1:
{
if(params == NULL) return NULL;
ParamsCommand1Struct *value = (ParamsCommand1Struct *) params;
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
return buffer;
}
break;
// ...
default:
break;
}
}
The main thing I do not really like of the latter option is this,
ParamsCommand1Struct *value = (ParamsCommand1Struct *) params;
because "params" could not be a pointer to "ParamsCommand1Struct" but a pointer to "ParamsCommand2Struct" or someone else.
I really appreciate your opinions!
General Answer
In Writing Solid Code, Steve Macguire's advice is to prefer distinct functions (methods) for specific situations. The reason is that you can assert conditions that are relevant to the specific case, and you can more easily debug because you have more context.
An interesting example is the standard C run-time's functions for dynamic memory allocation. Most of it is redundant, as realloc can actually do (almost) everything you need. If you have realloc, you don't need malloc or free. But when you have such a general function, used for several different types of operations, it's hard to add useful assertions and it's harder to write unit tests, and it's harder to see what's happening when debugging. Macquire takes it a step farther and suggests that, not only should realloc just do _re_allocation, but it should probably be two distinct functions: one for growing a block and one for shrinking a block.
While I generally agree with his logic, sometimes there are practical advantages to having one general purpose method (often when operations is highly data-driven). So I usually decide on a case by case basis, with a bias toward creating very specific methods rather than overly general purpose ones.
Specific Answer
In your case, I think you need to find a way to factor out the common code from the specifics. The switch is often a signal that you should be using a small class hierarchy with virtual functions.
If you like the single method approach, then it probably should be just a dispatcher to the more specific methods. In other words, each of those cases in the switch statement simply call the appropriate Method1, Method2, etc. If you want the user to see only the general purpose method, then you can make the specific implementations private methods.
Generally, it's better to offer separate functions, because they by their prototype names and arguments communicate directly and visibly to the user that which is available; this also leads to more straightforward documentation.
The one time I use a multi-purpose function is for something like a query() function, where a number of minor query functions, rather than leading to a proliferation of functions, are bundled into one, with a generic input and output void pointer.
In general, think about what you're trying to communicate to the API user by the API prototypes themselves; a clear sense of what the API can do. He doesn't need excessive minutae; he does need to know the core functions which are the entire point of having the API in the first place.
First off, you need to decide which language you are using. Tagging the question with both C and C++ here makes no sense. I am assuming C++.
If you can create a generic function then of course that is preferable (why would you prefer multiple, redundant functions?) The question is; can you? However, you seem to be unaware of templates. We need to see what you have omitted here to tell if you if templates are suitable however:
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
In the general case, assuming templates are appropriate, all of that turns into:
template <typename T>
unsigned char *Method(CommandTypeEnum command, T *params) {
// more here
}
On a side note, how is buffer declared? Are you returning a pointer to dynamically allocated memory? Prefer RAII type objects and avoid dynamically allocating memory like that if so.
If you are using C++ then I would avoid using void* as you don't really need to. There is nothing wrong with having multiple methods. Note that you don't actually have to rename the function in your first set of examples - you can just overload a function using different parameters so that there is a separate function signature for each type. Ultimately, this kind of question is very subjective and there are a number of ways of doing things. Looking at your functions of the first type, you would perhaps be well served by looking into the use of templated functions
You could create a struct. That's what I use to handle console commands.
typedef int (* pFunPrintf)(const char*,...);
typedef void (CommandClass::*pKeyFunc)(char *,pFunPrintf);
struct KeyCommand
{
const char * cmd;
unsigned char cmdLen;
pKeyFunc pfun;
const char * Note;
long ID;
};
#define CMD_FORMAT(a) a,(sizeof(a)-1)
static KeyCommand Commands[]=
{
{CMD_FORMAT("one"), &CommandClass::CommandOne, "String Parameter",0},
{CMD_FORMAT("two"), &CommandClass::CommandTwo, "String Parameter",1},
{CMD_FORMAT("three"), &CommandClass::CommandThree, "String Parameter",2},
{CMD_FORMAT("four"), &CommandClass::CommandFour, "String Parameter",3},
};
#define AllCommands sizeof(Commands)/sizeof(KeyCommand)
And the Parser function
void CommandClass::ParseCmd( char* Argcommand )
{
unsigned int x;
for ( x=0;x<AllCommands;x++)
{
if(!memcmp(Commands[x].cmd,Argcommand,Commands[x].cmdLen ))
{
(this->*Commands[x].pfun)(&Argcommand[Commands[x].cmdLen],&::printf);
break;
}
}
if(x==AllCommands)
{
// Unknown command
}
}
I use a thread safe printf pPrintf, so ignore it.
I don't really know what you want to do, but in C++ you probably should derive multiple classes from a Formatter Base class like this:
class Formatter
{
virtual void Format(unsigned char* buffer, Command command) const = 0;
};
class YourClass
{
public:
void Method(Command command, const Formatter& formatter)
{
formatter.Format(buffer, command);
}
private:
unsigned char* buffer_;
};
int main()
{
//
Params1Formatter formatter(/*...*/);
YourClass yourObject;
yourObject.Method(CommandA, formatter);
// ...
}
This removes the resposibility to handle all that params stuff from your class and makes it closed for changes. If there will be new commands or parameters during further development you don't have to modifiy (and eventually break) existing code but add new classes that implement the new stuff.
While not full answer this should guide you in correct direction: ONE FUNCTION ONE RESPONSIBILITY. Prefer the code where it is responsible for one thing only and does it well. The code whith huge switch statement (which is not bad by itself) where you need cast void * to some other type is a smell.
By the way I hope you do realise that according to standard you can only cast from void * to <type> * only when the original cast was exactly from <type> * to void *.
First, some background:
(Note: Though I'm in non-.NET Win32 land, this is really a C++ question)
I'm using a 3rd party API which requires you to register a callback function in order to know when an async operation is complete. Gotta use the callback, no way around it.
A non-OOP implementation would be something like this:
void __stdcall MyCbFcn(int value)
{
do something with 'value'...
}
API_RegisterCallback(MyCbFcn);
Pretty standard stuff.
BUT...
My code is OOP, with multiple instances rx'ing the callback, thus the callback needs to be routed to the object that registered it.
Knowing that folks do this, callbacks typically include a user var, something like:
void __stdcall MyCbFcn(int value, U32 user)
{
do something with 'value'...
}
API_RegisterCallback(MyCbFcn, someUserValue);
and more specifically, when combined with OOP, this user arg allows you to get back into context:
(written inline for brevity):
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass()
{
API_RegisterCallback(MyClass::StaticCbFcn, (U32)this);
}
private:
static void __stdcall StaticCbFcn(int value, U32 user)
{
MyClass* pThis = (MyClass*)user;
pThis->InstanceCbFcn(value);
}
void InstanceCbFcn(int value)
{
... do some work in context ...
}
}
BUT, my API doesn't feature a user arg :(
So now my question:
How I can get back into context?
I've considered kinda sketchy things like defining a "pool" of 100 distinct callbacks and assigning them as objects are created, but that seems like a real hack.
An obvious solution ... if I were in e.g. JavaScript :) ... would be to use an anonymous function, but AFAIK C++ doesn't have anything like that.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
"100 distinct callbacks" is really the only thing you can do, thus you use the function address as identifying parameter. It might help to implement the different functions as template with a constant parameter:
template < unsinged N >
void StaticCbFcn( int value )
{
map[ N ].InstanceCbFcn( value );
}
You can do this with boost bind:
boost::bind(&my::function_to_call_cb, this, _1, context));
void my_impl::function_to_call_cb(int result, std::string context)