In C# I am declaring an interface, which will be exposed to COM for use by C++. Our spec says one integer parameter should be [in]UINT uiVal. I'm using int in C# and it is being exposed as long.
It's not a big deal, but how can I force it to marshall to UINT rather than long? Some specific .Net type, or do I need to add attributes to the C# parameter somehow?
UINT is a type alias from the Windows SDK, you will never get it out of a type library. Tooling that translates type libraries, like the #import directive you are using, pick native C types. History plays a role, COM was originally designed for the 16-bit version of Windows. When long was important to declare a 32-bit integer.
Closest you can get is uint in the C# declaration, it will be translated to unsigned long in your C++ code. Which is fine, it is still a 32-bit type, Microsoft chose the LLP64 data model for 64-bit code. They did not have much of a choice. Unlike the LP64 model chosen in *nix. They did not have much of a choice either, the Y2K38 disaster is approaching fast :)
Related
Is Microsofts C++/CLI built on top of the C++ Standard (C++98 or C++11) or is it only "similar" and has deviations?
Or, specifically, is every ISO standard conforming C++ program (either C++98 or C++11), also a conforming C++/CLI program?
Note: I interpret the Wikipedia article above only comparing C++/CLI to MC++, not to ISO Standard C++.
Sure, it is an extension to C++03 and can compile any compliant C++03 program that doesn't conflict with the added keywords. The only thing it doesn't support are some of the Microsoft extensions to C++, the kind that are fundamentally incompatible with managed code execution like __fastcall and __try. MC++ was their first attempt at it, kept compatible by prefixing all added keywords with underscores. The syntax was rather forced and not well received by their customers, C++/CLI dropped the practice and has a much more intuitive syntax. Stanley Lippman of C++ Primer fame was heavily involved btw.
The compiler can be switched between managed and native code generation on-the-fly with #pragma managed, the product is a .NET mixed-mode assembly that contains both MSIL and native machine code. The MSIL produced from native C++ source is not exactly equivalent to the kind produced by, say, the C# or VB.NET compilers. It doesn't magically become verifiable and doesn't get the garbage collector love, you can corrupt the heap or blow the stack just as easily. And no optimizer love either, the MSIL gets translated to machine code at runtime and is optimized just like normal managed code with the time restrictions inherent in a jitter. Getting too much native C++ code translated to MSIL is a very common mistake, the compiler hides it too well.
C++/CLI is notable for introducing syntax that got later adopted into C++11. Like nullptr, override, final and enum class. Bit of a problem, actually, it begat __nullptr to be able to distinguish between a managed and a native null pointer. They never found a great solution for enum class, you have to declare it public to get a managed enum type. Some C++11 extensions work, few beyond the ones it already had, auto is fine but no lambda expressions, quite a loss in .NET programming. The language has been frozen since 2005.
The C++/CX language extension is notable as well, one that makes writing C++ code for Store and Phone apps palatable. The syntax resembles C++/CLI a great deal, including the ref class and hats in the syntax. But with objects allocated with ref new instead of gcnew, the latter would have been too misleading. Otherwise very different from C++/CLI at runtime, you get pure native code out of C++/CX. The language extension hides the COM interop code that's underneath, automatically reference-counting objects, translating error codes into exceptions and mapping generics. The resemblance to C++/CLI syntax is no accident, they basically perform the same role. Mapping C++-like syntax to a foreign type system.
CLI is a set of extensions for standard C++. CLI has full support of standard C++ and adds something more. So every C++ program will compile with enabled CLI, except you are using a CLI reserved word and this is the weakness of the extension, because it does not respect the double underscore rule for extensions (such reserved words has to begin with __).
You can deactivate those extensions in the GUI by:
Configuration Properties -> General -> Common Language Runtime Support
Even Bjarne Stroustrup calls CLI an extension:
On the difficult and controversial question of what the CLI binding/extensions to C++ is to be called, I prefer C++/CLI as a shorthand for "The CLI extensions to ISO C++". Keeping C++ as part of the name reminds people what is the base language and will help keep C++ a proper subset of C++ with the C++/CLI extension
Language extensions could always be called deviations from the standard, because it will not compile with a compiler without CLI support (e.g. the ^ pointer).
I'm using .NET library exposed to COM from VBA. The library interface uses the TimeSpan class for settable property. Is there any way I can construct the TimeSpan via COM, so that I can assign a value to the property?
I found I can instantiate some System assembly types, if I register the assembly for COM:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/ms364069(v=vs.80)#calling-into-the-framework
But it does not seem to be useful at all, as the TimeSpan is an immutable object whose value can be set only via a constructor with parameter or static factory method. None of these can be called via COM, afaik.
I'm hoping there's some trick. For instance one can create the TimeSpan indirectly using the following C# code that could theoretically be convertible to COM, was the DateTime class exposed to COM (what it is not, contrary to the TimeSpan):
new DateTime().AddMilliseconds(1000).TimeOfDay;
Obviously I can implement my own .NET assembly exposed to COM with some factory method. But I'm hoping for a solution using "standard" .NET libraries or a plain VBA code only.
Lots of the basic .NET types have the [ComVisible(true)] attribute so they can be used in COM interop. So does TimeSpan, the CLR will automatically marshal it for you.
Trouble is, there's no standard COM Automation type that unambiguously represents a time span. Like there is for DateTime, it is marshaled as a scaled double, 0 means 12/30/1899 and it increments by 1.0 for every day. TimeOfDay is the fraction. DateTime.ToOADate() returns it. No such standard was ever picked for a time span. Compare to the VBScript DateDiff() function, it returns an integer whose value depends on the unit you ask for.
So the CLR has few ways to keep everybody happy, it punts and marshals the TimeSpan.Ticks property value. A 64-bit integer, unit is 100-nanoseconds. The corresponding Automation type is VT_I8.
Trouble is, lots of COM hosts peter out at 32-bit integers. VBA does. So they tend to fall over, the common error message is "Automation type not supported".
Nothing you can't work around, you can expose the value with a different type that VBA does support. A double for example. You just need to document how the COM client should interpret it. A value of 0 is entirely unambiguous, only the scaling is a design choice. Since TimeSpan already has a property that returns the time span as a double, you'd probably favor milliseconds. So you can simply return TimeSpan.TotalMilliseconds and round-trip with TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(). Using a unit of days, like DateTime does, is attractive as well. Use TimeSpan.TotalDays and TimeSpan.FromDays(). Exposing it as int is an option as well. But watch out for overflow, if you pick msec then time spans larger than 27 days cannot be represented. Up to you to make the choice.
In my VB6 application I make several calls to a COM server my team created from a Ada project (using GNATCOM). There are basically 2 methods available on the COM server. Their prototypes in VB are:
Sub PutParam(Param As Parameter_Type, Value)
Function GetParam(Param As Parameter_Type)
where Parameter_Type is an enumerated type which distinguishes the many parameters I can put to/get from the COM server and 'Value' is a Variant type variable. PutParam() receives a variant and GetParam() returns a variant. (I don't really know why in the VB6 Object Browser there's no reference to the Variant type on the COM server interface...).
The product of this project has been used continuously this way for years without any problems in this interface on computers with Windows XP with SP2. On computers with WinXP SP3 we get the error 0x800706F7 "The stub received bad data" when trying to put parameters with the 'Long' type.
Does anybody have any clue on what could be causing this? The COM server is still being built in a system with SP2. Should make any difference building it on a system with SP3? (like when we build for X64 in X64 systems).
One of the calls that are causing the problem is the following (changed some var names):
Dim StructData As StructData_Type
StructData.FirstLong = 1234567
StructData.SecondLong = 8901234
StructData.Status = True
ComServer.PutParam(StructDataParamType, StructData)
Where the definition of StructData_Type is:
Type StructData_Type
FirstLong As Long
SecondLong As Long
Status As Boolean
End Type
(the following has been added after the question was first posted)
The definition of the primitive calls on the interface of the COM server in IDL are presented below:
// Service to receive data
HRESULT PutParam([in] Parameter_Type Param, [in] VARIANT *Value);
//Service to send requested data
HRESULT GetParam([in] Parameter_Type Param, [out, retval] VARIANT *Value);
The definition of the structure I'm trying to pass is:
struct StructData_Type
{
int FirstLong;
int SecondLong;
VARIANT_BOOL Status;
} StructData_Type;
I found it strange that this definition here is using 'int' as the type of FirstLong and SeconLong and when I check the VB6 object explorer they are typed 'Long'. Btw, when I do extract the IDL from the COM server (using a specific utility) those parameters are defined as Long.
Update:
I have tested the same code with a version of my COM server compiled for Windows 7 (different version of GNAT, same GNATCOM version) and it works! I don't really know what happened here. I'll keep trying to identify the problem on WinXP SP3 but It is good to know that it works on Win7. If you have a similar problem it may be good to try to migrate to Win7.
I'll focus on explaining what the error means, there are too few hints in the question to provide a simple answer.
A "stub" is used in COM when you make calls across an execution boundary. It wasn't stated explicitly in the question but your Ada program is probably an EXE and implements an out-of-process COM server. Crossing the boundary between processes in Windows is difficult due to their strong isolation. This is done in Windows by RPC, Remote Procedure Call, a protocol for making calls across such boundaries, a network being the typical case.
To make an RPC call, the arguments of a function must be serialized into a network packet. COM doesn't know how to do this because it doesn't know enough about the actual arguments to a function, it needs the help of a proxy. A piece of code that does know what the argument types are. On the receiving end is a very similar piece of code that does the exact opposite of what the proxy does. It deserializes the arguments and makes the internal call. This is the stub.
One way this can fail is when the stub receives a network packet and it contains more or less data than required for the function argument values. Clearly it won't know what to do with that packet, there is no sensible way to turn that into a StructData_Type value, and it will fail with "The stub received bad data" error.
So the very first explanation for this error to consider is a DLL Hell problem. A mismatch between the proxy and the stub. If this app has been stable for a long time then this is not a happy explanation.
There's another aspect about your code snippet that is likely to induce this problem. Structures are very troublesome beasts in software, their members are aligned to their natural storage boundary and the alignment rules are subject to interpretation by the respective compilers. This can certainly be the case for the structure you quoted. It needs 10 bytes to store the fields, 4 + 4 + 2 and they align naturally. But the structure is actually 12 bytes long. Two bytes are padded at the end to ensure that the ints still align when the structure is stored in an array. It also makes COM's job very difficult, since COM hides implementation detail and structure alignment is a massive detail. It needs help to copy a structure, the job of the IRecordInfo interface. The stub will also fail when it cannot find an implementation of that interface.
I'll talk a bit about the proxy, stub and IRecordInfo. There are two basic ways a proxy/stub pair are generated. One way is by describing the interfaces in a language called IDL, Interface Description Language, and compile that with MIDL. That compiler is capable of auto-generating the proxy/stub code, since it knows the function argument types. You'll get a DLL that needs to be registered on both the client and the server. Your server might be using that, I don't know.
The second way is what VB6 uses, it takes advantage of a universal proxy that's built into Windows. Called FactoryBuffer, its CLSID is {00000320-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}. It works by using a type library. A type library is a machine readable description of the functions in a COM server, good enough for FactoryBuffer to figure out how to serialize the function arguments. This type library is also the one that provides the info that IRecordInfo needs to figure out how the members of a structure are aligned. I don't know how it is done on the server side, never heard of GNATCOM before.
So a strong explanation for this problem is that you are having a problem with the type library. Especially tricky in VB6 because you cannot directly control the guids that it uses. It likes to generate new ones when you make trivial changes, the only way to avoid it is by selecting the binary compatibility option. Which uses an old copy of the type library and tries to keep the new one as compatible as possible. If you don't have that option turned on then do expect trouble, especially for the guid of the structure. Kaboom if it changed and the other end is still using the old guid.
Just some hints on where to start looking. Do not assume it is a problem caused by SP3, this COM infrastructure hasn't changed for a very long time. But certainly expect this kind of problem due to a new operating system version being installed and having to re-register everything. SysInternals' ProcMon is a good utility to see the programs use the registry to find the proxy, stub and type library. And you'd certainly get help from a COM Spy kind of utility, albeit that they are very hard to find these days.
If it suddenly stopped working happily on XP, the first culprit I'd look for is type mismatches. It is possible that "long" on such systems is now 64-bits, while your Ada COM code (and/or perhaps your C ints) are exepecting 32-bits. With a traditionally-compiled system this would have been checked for you by your compiler, but the extra indirection you have with COM makes that difficult.
The bit you wrote in there about "when we compile for 64-bit systems" makes me particularly leery. 64-bit compiles may change the size of many C types, you know.
This Related Post suggests you need padding in your struct, as marshalling code may expect more data than you actually send (which is a bug, of course). Your struct contains 9 bytes (assuming 4 bytes for each of the ints/longs and one for the boolean). Try to add padding so that your struct contains a multiple of 4 bytes (or, failing that, multiple of 8, as the post isn't clear on the expected size)
I am also suggesting that the problem is due to a padding issue in your structure. I don't know whether you can control this using a #pragma, but it might be worth looking at your documentation.
I think it would be a good idea to try and patch your struct so that the resulting type library struct is a multiple of four (or eight). Your Status member takes up 2 bytes, so maybe you should insert a dummy value of the same type either before or after Status - which should bring it up to 12 bytes (if packing to eight bytes, this would have to be three dummy variables).
In the documentation for com it says that it works literally with every language. Do you need to have a specific API for that language so it can interface with com, or can any language literally just use it out of box? Also do you need a special compiler? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I have never used it before, and I have been trying to find this answer. When I look at demos of com examples it all seems to access the objects in a c style syntax, are their bindings and apis for other languages (literally all)?
The key thing about COM is that it is a "binary standard": which is to say that it doesn't care what the language used is, so long as the bits and bytes in memory end up in the right place.
COM basically specifies that all COM objects must have a specific layout in memory: the interface pointer points to a pointer that in turn points to a table of function pointers, which has at least three members, the first three of which are pointers to the IUnknown functions (AddRef, Release, QueryInterface), and the remainder are pointers to the other functions in the interface. COM also specifies how arguments are passed to these functions - so that the caller and callee agree on how the stack is used, and who pops off the values.
This requirement happily matches how C++ just happens to work on Windows; so most C++ classes that implement IUnknown will just happen to ends up as being valid COM classes: this is because Microsoft's implementation of C++ happens to use an object layout that matches what COM requires: the C++ object vtable pointer is the same as the COM pointer-to-table-of-function-pointers, the C++ table of function pointers is exactly what COM requires for its table-of-function-pointers, and so on. (This isn't entirely just a happy coincidence: COM was likely designed to take advantage of the most common way that C++ objects are implemented in memory which is the technique that MS's compiler uses. Note that C++ the language specification doesn't actually specify any particular object layout - so you could have a 3rd party C++ compiler that implemented C++ in a way that gave you classes that are not usable by COM. But no compiler vendor in their right mind would do that, since they would appear to be broken compared to the others!)
In plain C, you can create a COM object by creating suitable structs-containing-pointers manually. This works because C essentially allows you to specify binary-level memory layout for structs manually; you can create structs that you know will have the appropriate layout that COM is expecting.
In other languages, especially those that don't allow the user to specify memory layout explicitly, you need support from the language to allow for COM support. All the .Net languages - C#, VB.Net, and so on - use support in the .Net runtime that understands what COM expects, and produces the appropriate wrappers as needed to allow the interop to work.
So, long story short, it's not the case that any language under the sun will automatically work with COM; it's really the case that a couple of languages - namely C and C++ - are already aligned with COM's requirements; and most other languages will need some compiler support to make it work.
I didn't understand what is IntPtr, could someone explain this?
thanks
It is an integer that is the same size as a pointer. 32 bits wide in 32 bit images, 64 wide in 64 bit images.
It is the managed counterpart of void*.
You can cast to and from void* for usage in managed code without having to resort to unsafe code in managed layers, eg C#.
It's a .NET platform-specific type that is used to represent a pointer or a handle.
The IntPtr type is designed to be an integer whose size is platform-specific. That is, an instance of this type is expected to be 32-bits on 32-bit hardware and operating systems, and 64-bits on 64-bit hardware and operating systems.
The IntPtr type can be used by languages that support pointers, and as a common means of referring to data between languages that do and do not support pointers.
IntPtr objects can also be used to hold handles. For example, instances of IntPtr are used extensively in the System.IO.FileStream class to hold file handles.
(from MSDSN)
This is about the c and c++ type intptr_t but the principle is the same.
What is uintptr_t data type
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.intptr(v=VS.100).aspx#Y69
A pointer sized blackbox. Sometimes you have languages that don't support unsafe code/pointers, and thus need to use IntPtr in the API.
I think its use has been reduced since .net 2 since many of its use-cases are better fit for safe-handles.