I'm looking to develop a set of C APIs that will wrap around our existing C++ APIs to access our core logic (written in object-oriented C++). This will essentially be a glue API that allows our C++ logic to be usable by other languages. What are some good tutorials, books, or best-practices that introduce the concepts involved in wrapping C around object-oriented C++?
This is not too hard to do by hand, but will depend on the size of your interface.
The cases where I've done it were to enable use of our C++ library from within pure C code, and thus SWIG was not much help. (Well maybe SWIG can be used to do this, but I'm no SWIG guru and it seemed non-trivial)
All we ended up doing was:
Every object is passed about in C an opaque handle.
Constructors and destructors are wrapped in pure functions
Member functions are pure functions.
Other builtins are mapped to C equivalents where possible.
So a class like this (C++ header)
class MyClass
{
public:
explicit MyClass( std::string & s );
~MyClass();
int doSomething( int j );
}
Would map to a C interface like this (C header):
struct HMyClass; // An opaque type that we'll use as a handle
typedef struct HMyClass HMyClass;
HMyClass * myStruct_create( const char * s );
void myStruct_destroy( HMyClass * v );
int myStruct_doSomething( HMyClass * v, int i );
The implementation of the interface would look like this (C++ source)
#include "MyClass.h"
extern "C"
{
HMyClass * myStruct_create( const char * s )
{
return reinterpret_cast<HMyClass*>( new MyClass( s ) );
}
void myStruct_destroy( HMyClass * v )
{
delete reinterpret_cast<MyClass*>(v);
}
int myStruct_doSomething( HMyClass * v, int i )
{
return reinterpret_cast<MyClass*>(v)->doSomething(i);
}
}
We derive our opaque handle from the original class to avoid needing any casting, and (This didn't seem to work with my current compiler). We have to make the handle a struct as C doesn't support classes.
So that gives us the basic C interface. If you want a more complete example showing one way that you can integrate exception handling, then you can try my code on github : https://gist.github.com/mikeando/5394166
The fun part is now ensuring that you get all the required C++ libraries linked into you larger library correctly. For gcc (or clang) that means just doing the final link stage using g++.
I think Michael Anderson's answer is on the right track but my approach would be different. You have to worry about one extra thing: Exceptions. Exceptions are not part of the C ABI so you cannot let Exceptions ever be thrown past the C++ code. So your header is going to look like this:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C"
{
#endif
void * myStruct_create( const char * s );
void myStruct_destroy( void * v );
int myStruct_doSomething( void * v, int i );
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
And your wrapper's .cpp file will look like this:
void * myStruct_create( const char * s ) {
MyStruct * ms = NULL;
try { /* The constructor for std::string may throw */
ms = new MyStruct(s);
} catch (...) {}
return static_cast<void*>( ms );
}
void myStruct_destroy( void * v ) {
MyStruct * ms = static_cast<MyStruct*>(v);
delete ms;
}
int myStruct_doSomething( void * v, int i ) {
MyStruct * ms = static_cast<MyStruct*>(v);
int ret_value = -1; /* Assuming that a negative value means error */
try {
ret_value = ms->doSomething(i);
} catch (...) {}
return ret_value;
}
Even better: If you know that all you need as a single instance of MyStruct, don't take the risk of dealing with void pointers being passed to your API. Do something like this instead:
static MyStruct * _ms = NULL;
int myStruct_create( const char * s ) {
int ret_value = -1; /* error */
try { /* The constructor for std::string may throw */
_ms = new MyStruct(s);
ret_value = 0; /* success */
} catch (...) {}
return ret_value;
}
void myStruct_destroy() {
if (_ms != NULL) {
delete _ms;
}
}
int myStruct_doSomething( int i ) {
int ret_value = -1; /* Assuming that a negative value means error */
if (_ms != NULL) {
try {
ret_value = _ms->doSomething(i);
} catch (...) {}
}
return ret_value;
}
This API is a lot safer.
But, as Michael mentioned, linking may get pretty tricky.
Hope this helps
It is not hard to expose C++ code to C, just use the Facade design pattern
I am assuming your C++ code is built into a library, all you need to do is make one C module in your C++ library as a Facade to your library along with a pure C header file. The C module will call the relevant C++ functions
Once you do that your C applications and library will have full access to the C api you exposed.
for example, here is a sample Facade module
#include <libInterface.h>
#include <objectedOrientedCppStuff.h>
int doObjectOrientedStuff(int *arg1, int arg2, char *arg3) {
Object obj = ObjectFactory->makeCppObj(arg3); // doing object oriented stuff here
obj->doStuff(arg2);
return obj->doMoreStuff(arg1);
}
you then expose this C function as your API and you can use it freely as a C lib with out worrying about
// file name "libIntrface.h"
extern int doObjectOrientedStuff(int *, int, char*);
Obviously this is a contrived example but this is the easiest way to expos a C++ library to C
I would think you may be able to get some ideas on direction and/or possibly utilize directly SWIG. I would think that going over a few of the examples would at least give you an idea of what kinds of things to consider when wrapping one API into another. The exercise could be beneficial.
SWIG is a software development tool that connects programs written in C and C++ with a variety of high-level programming languages. SWIG is used with different types of languages including common scripting languages such as Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl and Ruby. The list of supported languages also includes non-scripting languages such as C#, Common Lisp (CLISP, Allegro CL, CFFI, UFFI), Java, Lua, Modula-3, OCAML, Octave and R. Also several interpreted and compiled Scheme implementations (Guile, MzScheme, Chicken) are supported. SWIG is most commonly used to create high-level interpreted or compiled programming environments, user interfaces, and as a tool for testing and prototyping C/C++ software. SWIG can also export its parse tree in the form of XML and Lisp s-expressions. SWIG may be freely used, distributed, and modified for commercial and non-commercial use.
Just replace the concept of an object with a void * (often referred to as an opaque type in C oriented libraries) and reuse everything you know from C++.
I think using SWIG is the best answer... not only it avoid reinventing wheel but it is reliable and also promote a continuity in development rather than one shooting the problem.
High frequency problems need to be addressed by a long term solution.
Related
I'm looking to develop a set of C APIs that will wrap around our existing C++ APIs to access our core logic (written in object-oriented C++). This will essentially be a glue API that allows our C++ logic to be usable by other languages. What are some good tutorials, books, or best-practices that introduce the concepts involved in wrapping C around object-oriented C++?
This is not too hard to do by hand, but will depend on the size of your interface.
The cases where I've done it were to enable use of our C++ library from within pure C code, and thus SWIG was not much help. (Well maybe SWIG can be used to do this, but I'm no SWIG guru and it seemed non-trivial)
All we ended up doing was:
Every object is passed about in C an opaque handle.
Constructors and destructors are wrapped in pure functions
Member functions are pure functions.
Other builtins are mapped to C equivalents where possible.
So a class like this (C++ header)
class MyClass
{
public:
explicit MyClass( std::string & s );
~MyClass();
int doSomething( int j );
}
Would map to a C interface like this (C header):
struct HMyClass; // An opaque type that we'll use as a handle
typedef struct HMyClass HMyClass;
HMyClass * myStruct_create( const char * s );
void myStruct_destroy( HMyClass * v );
int myStruct_doSomething( HMyClass * v, int i );
The implementation of the interface would look like this (C++ source)
#include "MyClass.h"
extern "C"
{
HMyClass * myStruct_create( const char * s )
{
return reinterpret_cast<HMyClass*>( new MyClass( s ) );
}
void myStruct_destroy( HMyClass * v )
{
delete reinterpret_cast<MyClass*>(v);
}
int myStruct_doSomething( HMyClass * v, int i )
{
return reinterpret_cast<MyClass*>(v)->doSomething(i);
}
}
We derive our opaque handle from the original class to avoid needing any casting, and (This didn't seem to work with my current compiler). We have to make the handle a struct as C doesn't support classes.
So that gives us the basic C interface. If you want a more complete example showing one way that you can integrate exception handling, then you can try my code on github : https://gist.github.com/mikeando/5394166
The fun part is now ensuring that you get all the required C++ libraries linked into you larger library correctly. For gcc (or clang) that means just doing the final link stage using g++.
I think Michael Anderson's answer is on the right track but my approach would be different. You have to worry about one extra thing: Exceptions. Exceptions are not part of the C ABI so you cannot let Exceptions ever be thrown past the C++ code. So your header is going to look like this:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C"
{
#endif
void * myStruct_create( const char * s );
void myStruct_destroy( void * v );
int myStruct_doSomething( void * v, int i );
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
And your wrapper's .cpp file will look like this:
void * myStruct_create( const char * s ) {
MyStruct * ms = NULL;
try { /* The constructor for std::string may throw */
ms = new MyStruct(s);
} catch (...) {}
return static_cast<void*>( ms );
}
void myStruct_destroy( void * v ) {
MyStruct * ms = static_cast<MyStruct*>(v);
delete ms;
}
int myStruct_doSomething( void * v, int i ) {
MyStruct * ms = static_cast<MyStruct*>(v);
int ret_value = -1; /* Assuming that a negative value means error */
try {
ret_value = ms->doSomething(i);
} catch (...) {}
return ret_value;
}
Even better: If you know that all you need as a single instance of MyStruct, don't take the risk of dealing with void pointers being passed to your API. Do something like this instead:
static MyStruct * _ms = NULL;
int myStruct_create( const char * s ) {
int ret_value = -1; /* error */
try { /* The constructor for std::string may throw */
_ms = new MyStruct(s);
ret_value = 0; /* success */
} catch (...) {}
return ret_value;
}
void myStruct_destroy() {
if (_ms != NULL) {
delete _ms;
}
}
int myStruct_doSomething( int i ) {
int ret_value = -1; /* Assuming that a negative value means error */
if (_ms != NULL) {
try {
ret_value = _ms->doSomething(i);
} catch (...) {}
}
return ret_value;
}
This API is a lot safer.
But, as Michael mentioned, linking may get pretty tricky.
Hope this helps
It is not hard to expose C++ code to C, just use the Facade design pattern
I am assuming your C++ code is built into a library, all you need to do is make one C module in your C++ library as a Facade to your library along with a pure C header file. The C module will call the relevant C++ functions
Once you do that your C applications and library will have full access to the C api you exposed.
for example, here is a sample Facade module
#include <libInterface.h>
#include <objectedOrientedCppStuff.h>
int doObjectOrientedStuff(int *arg1, int arg2, char *arg3) {
Object obj = ObjectFactory->makeCppObj(arg3); // doing object oriented stuff here
obj->doStuff(arg2);
return obj->doMoreStuff(arg1);
}
you then expose this C function as your API and you can use it freely as a C lib with out worrying about
// file name "libIntrface.h"
extern int doObjectOrientedStuff(int *, int, char*);
Obviously this is a contrived example but this is the easiest way to expos a C++ library to C
I would think you may be able to get some ideas on direction and/or possibly utilize directly SWIG. I would think that going over a few of the examples would at least give you an idea of what kinds of things to consider when wrapping one API into another. The exercise could be beneficial.
SWIG is a software development tool that connects programs written in C and C++ with a variety of high-level programming languages. SWIG is used with different types of languages including common scripting languages such as Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl and Ruby. The list of supported languages also includes non-scripting languages such as C#, Common Lisp (CLISP, Allegro CL, CFFI, UFFI), Java, Lua, Modula-3, OCAML, Octave and R. Also several interpreted and compiled Scheme implementations (Guile, MzScheme, Chicken) are supported. SWIG is most commonly used to create high-level interpreted or compiled programming environments, user interfaces, and as a tool for testing and prototyping C/C++ software. SWIG can also export its parse tree in the form of XML and Lisp s-expressions. SWIG may be freely used, distributed, and modified for commercial and non-commercial use.
Just replace the concept of an object with a void * (often referred to as an opaque type in C oriented libraries) and reuse everything you know from C++.
I think using SWIG is the best answer... not only it avoid reinventing wheel but it is reliable and also promote a continuity in development rather than one shooting the problem.
High frequency problems need to be addressed by a long term solution.
In C++, is it possible to load a shared library at execution time?
I want the user to choose which shared library to be loaded at runtime, without recompiling the whole program.
dlopen() is a solution for C, but my program is written is C++/Qt, and the symbol to extract are Qt-style class, is there a more "c++" way to do that.
You can do it in Qt using QLibrary in two ways. The following example calls a function from a shared library at runtime in two different ways:
#include <QLibrary>
#include <QDebug>
class Dynamic_library
{
public:
Dynamic_library();
virtual int sum( int len, int * data );
};
typedef Dynamic_library * (*get_object_func)();
typedef int (*call_sum_func)(int len , int * data);
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
QCoreApplication a(argc, argv);
QLibrary library( "./dynamic_library" );
library.load();
if( !library.isLoaded() )
{
qDebug() << "Cannot load library.";
return 0;
}
call_sum_func call_sum = (call_sum_func)library.resolve( "call_sum" );
if( call_sum )
{
//Dynamic_library * obj=get_object();
int * a=new int[3];
a[0]=2;
a[1]=3;
a[2]=4;
qDebug() << "sum of 2+3+4' = " << call_sum( 3, a ) <<"\n";
delete [] a;
}
get_object_func get_object = (get_object_func)library.resolve( "get_object" );
if( get_object )
{
Dynamic_library * obj=get_object();
int * a=new int[3];
a[0]=7;
a[1]=8;
a[2]=9;
qDebug() << "sum of 7+8+9' = " << obj->sum(3, a );
delete [] a;
}
return a.exec();
}
The code for the shared library is as follows:
class DYNAMIC_LIBRARYSHARED_EXPORT Dynamic_library
{
public:
Dynamic_library();
virtual int sum( int len, int * data );
};
extern "C" Q_DECL_EXPORT Dynamic_library * get_object()
{
return new Dynamic_library();
}
extern "C" Q_DECL_EXPORT int call_sum(int len, int * data)
{
return Dynamic_library().sum(len,data);
}
Dynamic_library::Dynamic_library()
{
}
int Dynamic_library::sum( int len, int *data )
{
int sum = 0;
for(int i=0; i<len; ++i )
sum += data[i];
return sum;
}
If the target library itself, or at least its specification, is under your control, then you shouldn't be using QLibrary - use the Qt plugin system instead. It doesn't require the call-via-pointer gymnastics otherwise needed.
If you insist on using a dlopen-like mechanism, there is nothing C-specific about QLibrary. The obvious limitation is that the library that you're trying to open must have been compiled with a C++ compiler that's ABI-compatible to the one you use to compile your own code. On Windows that really means using the same MSVC version.
Apart from that, you'll have to look up the mangled version of the symbol. Once you've done that, you can call the symbol using a function/method pointer that matches it. This won't work on constructors/destructors, by design. If you wish to create new instances of objects, you'll need a static factory method provided by the library.
If the library doesn't provide factory methods, you can implement a shim library that links to the target library by a generic name and does provide factory methods. You'll still need to call individual methods by function/method pointers.
Create a temporary folder.
Copy the shim library to the temporary folder.
Copy the target library renamed to the generic name, into the temporary folder.
Save the value of LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable.
Prepend the temporary folder to LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Open/load the library.
Restore the saved value of LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Of course, you must have the header file for whatever interface the library exposes. It can't be, generally, reconstructed given just a dynamic library file - primarily because the mangled symbols don't have full structural information for the used types. For example, even if you can find a constructor for a given class, you won't know how big is the class instance (its sizeof).
Yes it's possible to do what you're describing on most operating systems, but how you do it is dependent on the system and regardless of the system it's definitely a bit more work on your end to make it happen.
The general steps are:
load the library
for each symbol you're interested in within the library, locate it and store to a variable for later use. (This can be done as-needed, rather than right away.)
For example, in pseudo-code (read: this won't compile!) on a *nix type system, lets assume your shared library has this in it:
// I'm declaring this _extern "C"_ to avoid name mangling, making it easier to
// specify a symbol name for dlsym() later
extern "C" int myFunction() {
return 10;
}
Assume this is in a library called libmyFunction.so. Your main application could, for example:
{
void *handle = dlopen("libmyFunction.so", <flags>);
if (!handle) return; // error: cannot locate the library!
int (*func)() = (int (*)())dlsym(handle, "myFunction");
if (!func) return; // error: cannot locate the symbol!
printf("The function returns: %d\n", func());
}
If you need to do this on Windows, the concept is the same but the function calls are different.
I am writing an adapter to combine two APIs (one in C and another in C++).
If a function is called on the one API I need to pass the callers ID and the function's arguments to an adapter and call the according function with this information passed.
Now aparently they can not be mapped directly as one interface requires C++ compilation and the name mangling would screw the other so that is why I am using a set of adapters in the first place.
As the number of arguments varies, I looked up variadic functions and found the idea pretty useful, however I am operating on POD only and have to deal with structs, enums and a lot of different arguments per call, which might need to be put back into a struct before feeding it to the target function.
Every example I stumbled upon was far simpler and involved mostly arithmetic operations like summing stuff up , finding largest numbers or printing. Mostly done with for loops on the var_list.
Maybe I got stuck on the idea and it won't work at all, but I am just curious...
Say I wanted to assign the arguments from the list to my target functions parameters (the order of the arguments passed is the correct one), what would be a good way?
BOOL Some_Function(
/* in */ CallerId *pObjectId,
/* in */ someDataType argument1 )
{
BOOL ret = Adapter_Call(pFunction, pObjectId, argument1);
return ret;
}
and so once I made it to the right adapter I want to do
BOOL Adapter_Call(*pFunction, *pObjectId, argument1, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, argument1);
/*go over list and do `var_list[i] = pFunctionArgList[i]` which is
of whatever type so I can use it as input for my function */
va_end(args);
pObjectId.pFunction(arg1,...,argn);
}
Can I access the input parameters of a function to perform assignments like this?
Has anyone done something like this before? Is there a conceptual mistake in my thinking?
All I found on the net was this, http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/extracting-function-parameter-and-return/240000586but due to the use of templates I am not sure if it wouldn't create another problem and so in the end implementing an adapter for each and every single functioncall may be simpler to do.
A SO search only returned this: Dynamic function calls at runtime (va_list)
First, you should heed Kerrek's advice about extern "C". This is C++'s mechanism for giving an identifier C linkage, meaning that the name won't be mangled by the C++ compiler.
Sometimes, and adapter still needs to be written for a C++ interface, because it manipulates objects that do not map to a C POD. So, the adapter gives the C interface a POD or opaque pointer type to manipulate, but the implementation of that interface converts that into an C++ object or reference and then calls the C++ interface. For example, suppose you wanted to provide a C interface for C++ std::map<int, void *>, you would have a common header file in C and C++ that would contain:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
struct c_map_int_ptr;
// ...
// return -1 on failure, otherwise 0, and *data is populated with result
int c_map_int_ptr_find (struct c_map_int_ptr *, int key, void **data);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
Then, the C++ code could implement the function like:
typedef std::map<int, void *> map_int_ptr;
int c_map_int_ptr_find (struct c_map_int_ptr *cmap, int key, void **data) {
map_int_ptr &map = *static_cast<map_int_ptr *>(cmap);
map_int_ptr::iterator i = map.find(key);
if (i != map.end()) {
*data = i->second;
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
Thus, there is no need to pass the arguments passed via the C interface through a variable argument adapter. And so, there is no need for the C++ code to tease out the arguments from a variable argument list. The C code calls directly into the C++ code, which knows what to do with the arguments.
I suppose if you are trying to implement some kind of automated C adapter code generator by parsing C++ code, you could think that using variable arguments would provide a regular mechanism to communicate arguments between the generated C code interface and the generated C++ adapter code that would call the original C++ interface. For such a scenario, the code for the above example would look something like this:
// C interface
typedef struct c_map_int_ptr c_map_int_ptr;
typedef struct c_map_int_ptr_iterator c_map_int_ptr_iterator;
//...
c_map_int_ptr_iterator c_map_int_ptr_find (c_map_int_ptr *map, int key) {
c_map_int_ptr_iterator result;
cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter(__func__, map, key, &result);
return result;
}
// C++ code:
struct cpp_adapter {
virtual ~cpp_adapter () {}
virtual void execute (va_list) {}
};
void cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter(const char *func, ...) {
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, func);
cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter_method_lookup(func).execute(ap);
va_end(ap);
}
//...
struct cpp_map_int_ptr_find_adapter : cpp_adapter {
void execute (va_list ap) {
map_int_ptr *map = va_arg(ap, map_int_ptr *);
int key = va_arg(ap, int);
c_map_int_ptr_iterator *c_iter = va_arg(ap, c_map_int_ptr_iterator *);
map_int_ptr::iterator i = map->find(key);
//...transfer result to c_iter
}
};
Where cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter_method_lookup() returns an appropriate cpp_adapter instance based on a table lookup.
This question is about C++ <-> C++ interoperability.
As is well known implementation of standard library classes/functions may differ across different vendors. Moreover implementation may differ even within same library vendor, when using different compiler keys, configuration (Debug/Release), etc.
Due to that reason, many library developers shifts to old plain C-style API.
Which leads to uglish error-prone interfaces.
For instance, in order to get string from some function, interfaces like Win GetCurrentDirectory function are used:
DWORD WINAPI GetCurrentDirectory(
__in DWORD nBufferLength,
__out LPTSTR lpBuffer
);
three parameters + some boilerplate code on both sides(checking if buffer size was enough, etc) just to get simple string.
I am thinking to use some auxiliary adapter/proxy class, which will do all conversions automaticly, and can be simply reused.
Something like:
#include <string>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>
class StringConverter
{
char *str; // TODO: use smart pointer with right deleter
public:
StringConverter(const std::string &user_string) // Will be defined only at user side
{
str=new char[user_string.length()+1];
(*(std::copy(user_string.begin(),user_string.end(),str)))=0;
}
operator std::string() // Will be defined only at library side
{
return std::string(str);
}
~StringConverter()
{
delete [] str;
}
};
StringConverter foo()
{
return std::string("asd");
}
int main(int argc,char *argv[])
{
std::cout << std::string(foo()) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
http://ideone.com/EfcKv
Note, I plan to have defenition of conversion from user string to StringConverter only at user side, and defenition of conversion from StringConverter to library string only inside library.
Also, right deleter should be used (from right heap).
What do you think about such approach?
Are there some major pitfalls?
Are there some superior alternatives?
This technique will work in some cases where standard data types are incompatible, but in others it will fare no better: name mangling differences and class memory layout differences (vptrs and tags) come to mind.
This is why C APIs are preferred.
But you can improve usability by burying the C API where the library caller never needs to see it. Then add a thin, idiomatic C++ overlay that provides the visible library interface. In some cases the thin overlay code can be used on both caller and library side, each compiled in its own environment: flags, link conventions, etc. Only C data types are exchanged. The simpler these data types are, the more compatibility you'll obtain.
The layer also takes care that memory allocation and deallocation occur on the same side of the API on a per object basis, as your code does. But it can be more flexible. For example, it's possible to arrange for an object allocated in the caller to be deallocated in the library and vice versa.
// library.h for both caller and library
// "shadow" C API should not be used by caller
extern "C" {
void *make_message(char *text);
char *get_text_of_message(void* msg);
void send_message(void *msg); // destroys after send.
}
// Thin C++ overlay
class Message {
void *msg;
public:
Message(const std::string &text) {
msg = make_message(text.c_str());
}
void send() {
if (msg) send_message(msg);
else error("already sent");
msg = 0;
}
std:string getTextString() {
return std:string(get_text_of_message(void* msg));
}
}
Is there some kind of tool i can give a c++ header to and have it change the API/lib/interface into a C interface as well as generate the C functions to cast and call the C++ code?
I think SWiG might do most of that.
I don't know of a tool that can do this automatically, it can get pretty tricky if you have classes as arguments to the public functions in your API.
But if your API is simple and mostly using native types, then you can do this by hand with not too much work. Here is a quick example of a C wrapper for a C++ class. Let's say this is the C++ class to wrap, let's call it test.h:
class Test {
public:
Test();
int do_something(char* arg);
bool is_valid(); // optional, but recommended (see below)
};
This is your C header test_c.h:
typedef void* TestHandle;
TestHandle newTest();
int deleteTest(TestHandle h);
int Test_do_something(TestHandle h, char* arg);
And your C implementation will be a C++ file with C functions, let's say test_c.cpp:
extern "C" TestHandle newTest()
{
return (void*)new Test();
}
extern "C" int deleteTest(TestHandle h)
{
Test* this = static_cast<Test*>(h);
if (!this->is_valid())
return -1; // here we define -1 as "invalid handle" error
delete this;
return 0; // here we define 0 as the "ok" error code
}
extern "C" int Test_do_something(TestHandle h, char* arg)
{
Test* this = static_cast<Test*>(h);
if (!this->is_valid())
return -1; // here we define -1 as "invalid handle" error
return this->do_something(arg);
}
The is_valid() method is there to guarantee that you were not given a bad handle. For example, you can store a magic number in all your instances, then is_valid() just ensures the magic number is there.