Pass data of arbitrary type between VBA and dll - dll

So I am working on an Excel Project that is going to load a C++ dll using VBA. What I'd like to do is to be able to pass an Excel range with no specific type (data can be numerical or categorical) to the C++ dll (The best way I can describe my Excel range is of the type variant).
So the steps probably involve:
Load the dll in VBA
Send the excel range to dll (The range may contain columns of numbers and/or columns of strings)
manipulate the data from excel in the dll file
I am thinking of using excel variant and C++ variant. But it's not clear for me how to use the C++ variant as I couldn't find any good documentations on it.
Another suggestion I received was to ues COM programming.
My Questions:
Could a kind soul possibly provide pointers for me on how to proceed? (e.g. by providing the C++ prototype, and a simple example of how to handle the variant)
Does anyone know any good documentation/tutorial on using C++ Variants (and perhaps jointly with VBA)?
Is using COMs preferable to using VARIANTS if speed is an issue?
Is using the C API an option?
UPDATE:
The size of the ranges I need to manipulate can be large (~ 500,000 rows).
Speed is a factor, thus, I'd like to avoid unnecessary copying as much as possible.

Provided you only want to pass data to the dll (and not pointers to actual Excel objects such as Range), you have two fundamental options:
You have huge data sets and want to avoid copying as much as possible.
In this case you might want to pass that same Variant array you get by calling Range.Value. In order to do that, you will have to write a little TLB to reference from VB, in which you would describe your exported C++ function as expecting a SAFEARRAY(VARIANT)*. This is because the Declare operator will not let you actually pass a SAFEARRAY*.
The function will look like this:
LONG __stdcall ReturnArrLowerBound(SAFEARRAY** ppArr)
{
if (ppArr == NULL) return -1;
SAFEARRAY* pArr = (*ppArr);
LONG res = 0;
SafeArrayGetLBound(pArr, 1, &res);
return res;
}
And the TLB descripion will look like that:
[
uuid(A686B138-D8CE-462e-AEF2-75DA4DBF1C75)
]
library foo
{
[
dllname("TestSafearray.dll")
]
module vb
{
[entry("ReturnArrLowerBound")]
LONG __stdcall ReturnArrLowerBound(SAFEARRAY(VARIANT)* ppArr);
}
}
And your C++ project will obviously include a def file:
LIBRARY "TestSafearray"
EXPORTS
ReturnArrLowerBound
Your data sets are reasonably sized and you don't mind a little bit of copying.
Then make your C++ function to accept a mere int[] and Declare it in VB as accepting arr() as Long. On VB side, allocate an array on Longs and copy the elements into it from the Range.Value array.

Related

How to load DLL file from Jscript file?

So I'm writing a standalone JScript file to be executed by Windows Script Host (this file is not going to be used as a web application).
My goal is to load a dll file. Just like using LoadLibrary function in a C++ application.
I tried researching the subject but I didn't come up with anything useful. I'm so lost I don't have any piece of code to share. I understand using ActiveXObject may come to my rescue. if so, any idea how to use it?
Update:
If we all agree that loading is impossible, I'll settle for validity check. Meaning, don't try to load but check if it is loaded and functional.
You can export a specific function for this purpose.
Then, from your JScript, execute rundll32.exe and check that the function ran as expected.
You might also give Gilles Laurent's DynaWrap
ocx a chance.
This kind of dll needs to be registered on the target system like regsvr32 /s DynaWrap.dll.
It is restricted to 32-bit DLLs, and this might be inconvenient for you to use, but it works on a 64bit Windows. You can't access function exported by ordinal number and you can't directly handle 64bit or greater values/pointers.
Here's a sample to call MessageBoxA from JScript:
var oDynaWrap = new ActiveXObject( "DynamicWrapper" )
// to call MessageBoxA(), first register the API function
oDynaWrap.Register( "USER32.DLL", "MessageBoxA", "I=HsSu", "f=s", "R=l" )
// now call the function
oDynaWrap.MessageBoxA( null, "MessageBoxA()", "A messagebox from JScript...", 3 )
And here from VBScript:
Option Explicit
Dim oDynaWrap
Set oDynaWrap = CreateObject( "DynamicWrapper" )
' to call MessageBoxA(), first register the API function
UserWrap.Register "USER32.DLL", "MessageBoxA", "I=HsSu", "f=s", "R=l"
' now call the function
UserWrap.MessageBoxA Null, "MessageBoxA()", "A messagebox from VBScript...", 3
To use a function you need to "register" the exported function of your DLL.
To do this you need to call the register method with a first parameter containing a string object to the complete path of the DLL, a second parameter for the exported name of the function to use, and following three paremeters describing the functions declartion in a somehow obscure syntax.
i= describes the number and data type of the functions parameters.
f= describes the type of call: _stdcall or _cdecl. Default to _stdcall.
r= describes the return values data type.
The supported data types are:
Code Variant Description
a VT_DISPATCH IDispatch*
b VT_BOOL BOOL
c VT_I4 unsigned char
d VT_R8 8 byte real
f VT_R4 4 byte real
h VT_I4 HANDLE
k VT_UNKNOWN IUnknown*
l VT_I4 LONG
p VT_PTR pointer
r VT_LPSTR string by reference
s VT_LPSTR string
t VT_I2 SHORT
u VT_UINT UINT
w VT_LPWSTR wide string
Thus the Register method call used in the examples describes MessageBoxA like this:
_stdcall LONG MessageBoxA( HANDLE, LPSTR, LPSTR, UINT );
For a explanation of MessageBoxA look at the docs on MSDN.
Please read the DynaWrap docs for more sophisticated examples... But you might need Google translate, 'cos they are written in french ;-)
To be able to use a dll as ActiveXObject, it needs to be registered as COM object. There are some restrictions on this but if you have a code for this dll, it is certainly doable.
When you register your dll as COM object, it is assigned a name. You use this name to create an object. This example from MSDN uses excel since it is already registered if you installed office.
var ExcelApp = new ActiveXObject("Excel.Application");
var ExcelSheet = new ActiveXObject("Excel.Sheet");
// Make Excel visible through the Application object.
ExcelSheet.Application.Visible = true;
// Place some text in the first cell of the sheet.
ExcelSheet.ActiveSheet.Cells(1,1).Value = "This is column A, row 1";
// Save the sheet.
ExcelSheet.SaveAs("C:\\TEST.XLS");
// Close Excel with the Quit method on the Application object.
ExcelSheet.Application.Quit();
Apart from restriction of registering dll, using dll is no different from using it as c++ or c# dll. Note that, C# (or other .NET dlls) should be ComVisible to be used from javascript this way.
EDIT: The only other way of using C/C++ dll from javascript is swig interfaces. I have not used it, therefore I can only point you in that direction.
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 target languages including common
scripting languages such as Javascript, Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl and
Ruby.

Derive string from const enum

I have the following in my constants file:
typedef enum
{
AnimalTypeBear,
AnimalTypeCamel,
AnimalTypeCow,
AnimalTypeCount
}
AnimalType;
If I declare an AnimalType variable somewhere in my code like following and set it to AnimalTypeBear:
AnimalType animalType = 0;
Is there away to somehow derive the string "Bear" from that animalType variable or just in general to access the string of its corresponding constant type (in this case AnimalTypeBear).
Enums are constant expressions like #define. Enums at compile time will be "translated" into the code as constants (while #define will be evaluated before compilation). So basically it is not possible to reference the enum string in this way.
As suggested by others you can use a string array.
You cannot do this without code in (Objective-)C. If you want to be able to use actual enumeration literals as strings in your code, or during I/O, with language support then you need to use a language with enumeration type support such as Pascal or Ada.
If you are keen to have this and don't mind work as long as it is reusable then you need to learn about reading the symbol tables structures from a binary and make sure that the information is not stripped from your application. You'll see the debugger can show the correct literals, also if you use Xcode's "Product > Generate Output > Assembly File" menu item you'll see the literals are in there as strings. It will be a lot of work for you, but would be reusable once done.
After that give up and write some code - a simple static array of labels and an index operation. Yes, it's a maintenance headache if you ever change your enumeration.
Alternatively you can write some different code, say in Ruby... Xcode supports adding your own file "types" and running scripts to (pre-)process them. So you could define, say, a file type ".enum" and use a Ruby script to convert that into a C enumeration definition and code to provide the strings. Apple has examples of using Ruby to pre-process files in this way. Once you have your script Xcode will do the rest, on each compilation it will run your script to convert your ".enum" into ".m" (or ".c") and the compile the result. This approach is usually best though for files which contain only one thing, e.g. localised string file processing, you don't usually write your enum declarations in their own files.

Most appropriate data structure for dynamic languages field access

I'm implementing a dynamic language that will compile to C#, and it's implementing its own reflection API (.NET's is too slow, and the DLR is limited only to more recent and resourceful implementations).
For this, I've implemented a simple .GetField(string f) and .SetField(string f, object val) interface. Until recently, the implementation just switches over all possible field string values and makes the corresponding action.
Also, this dynamic language has the possibility to define anonymous objects. For those anonymous objects, at first, I had implemented a simple hash algorithm.
By now, I am looking for ways to optimize the dynamic parts of the language, and I have come across the fact that a hash algorithm for anonymous objects would be overkill. This is because the objects are usually small. I'd say the objects contain 2 or 3 fields, normally. Very rarely, they would contain more than 15 fields. It would take more time to actually hash the string and perform the lookup than if I would test for equality between them all. (This is not tested, just theoretical).
The first thing I did was to -- at compile-time -- create a red-black tree for each anonymous object declaration and have it laid onto an array so that the object can look for it in a very optimized way.
I am still divided, though, if that's the best way to do this. I could go for a perfect hashing function. Even more radically, I'm thinking about dropping the need for strings and actually work with a struct of 2 longs.
Those two longs will be encoded to support 10 chars (A-za-z0-9_) each, which is mostly a good prediction of the size of the fields. For fields larger than this, a special function (slower) receiving a string will also be provided.
The result will be that strings will be inlined (not references), and their comparisons will be as cheap as a long comparison.
Anyway, it's a little hard to find good information about this kind of optimization, since this is normally thought on a vm-level, not a static language compilation implementation.
Does anyone have any thoughts or tips about the best data structure to handle dynamic calls?
Edit:
For now, I'm really going with the string as long representation and a linear binary tree lookup.
I don't know if this is helpful, but I'll chuck it out in case;
If this is compiling to C#, do you know the complete list of fields at compile time? So as an idea, if your code reads
// dynamic
myObject.foo = "some value";
myObject.bar = 32;
then during the parse, your symbol table can build an int for each field name;
// parsing code
symbols[0] == "foo"
symbols[1] == "bar"
then generate code using arrays or lists;
// generated c#
runtimeObject[0] = "some value"; // assign myobject.foo
runtimeObject[1] = 32; // assign myobject.bar
and build up reflection as a separate array;
runtimeObject.FieldNames[0] == "foo"; // Dictionary<int, string>
runtimeObject.FieldIds["foo"] === 0; // Dictionary<string, int>
As I say, thrown out in the hope it'll be useful. No idea if it will!
Since you are likely to be using the same field and method names repeatedly, something like string interning would work well to quickly generate keys for your hash tables. It would also make string equality comparisons constant-time.
For such a small data set (expected upper bounds of 15) I think almost any hashing will be more expensive then a tree or even a list lookup, but that is really dependent on your hashing algorithm.
If you want to use a dictionary/hash then you'll need to make sure the objects you use for the key return a hash code quickly (perhaps a single constant hash code that's built once). If you can prevent collisions inside of an object (sounds pretty doable) then you'll gain the speed and scalability (well for any realistic object/class size) of a hash table.
Something that comes to mind is Ruby's symbols and message passing. I believe Ruby's symbols act as a constant to just a memory reference. So comparison is constant, they are very lite, and you can use symbols like variables (I'm a little hazy on this and don't have a Ruby interpreter on this machine). Ruby's method "calling" really turns into message passing. Something like: obj.func(arg) turns into obj.send(:func, arg) (":func" is the symbol). I would imagine that symbol makes looking up the message handler (as I'll call it) inside the object pretty efficient since it's hash code most likely doesn't need to be calculated like most objects.
Perhaps something similar could be done in .NET.

Description format for an embedded structure

I have a C structure that allow users to configure options in an embedded system. Currently the GUI we use for this is custom written for every different version of this configuration structure. What I'd like for is to be able to describe the structure members in some format that can be read by the client configuration application, making it universal across all of our systems.
I've experimented with describing the structure in XML and having the client read the file; this works in most cases except those where some of the fields have inter-dependencies. So the format that I use needs to have a way to specify these; for instance, member A must always be less than or equal to half of member B.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and suggestions.
EDIT:
After reading the first reply I realized that my question is indeed a little too vague, so here's another attempt:
The embedded system needs to have access to the data as a C struct, running any other language on the processor is not an option. Basically, all I need is a way to define metadata with the structure, this metadata will be downloaded onto flash along with firmware. The client configuration utility will then read the metadata file over RS-232, CAN etc. and populate a window (a tree-view) that the user can then use to edit options.
The XML file that I mentioned tinkering with was doing exactly that, it contained the structure member name, data type, number of elements etc. The location of the member within the XML file implicitly defined its position in the C struct. This file resides on flash and is read by the configuration program; the only thing lacking is a way to define dependencies between structure fields.
The code is generated automatically using MATLAB / Simulink so I do have access to a scripting language to help with the structure creation. For example, if I do end up using XML the structure will only be defined in the XML format and I'll use a script to create the C structure during code generation.
Hope this is clearer.
For the simple case where there is either no relationship or a relationship with a single other field, you could add two fields to the structure: the "other" field number and a pointer to a function that compares the two. Then you'd need to create functions that compared two values and return true or false depending upon whether or not the relationship is met. Well, guess you'd need to create two functions that tested the relationship and the inverse of the relationship (i.e. if field 1 needs to be greater than field 2, then field 2 needs to be less than or equal to field 1). If you need to place more than one restriction on the range, you can store a pointer to a list of function/field pairs.
An alternative is to create a validation function for every field and call it when the field is changed. Obviously this function could be as complex as you wanted but might require more hand coding.
In theory you could generate the validation functions for either of the above techniques from the XML description that you described.
I would have expected you to get some answers by now, but let me see what I can do.
Your question is a bit vague, but it sounds like you want one of
Code generation
An embedded extension language
A hand coded run-time mini language
Code Generation
You say that you are currently hand tooling the configuration code each time you change this. I'm willing to bet that this is a highly repetitive task, so there is no reason that you can't write program to do it for you. Your generator should consume some domain specific language and emit c code and header files which you subsequently build into you application. An example of what I'm talking about here would be GNU gengetopt. There is nothing wrong with the idea of using xml for the input language.
Advantages:
the resulting code can be both fast and compact
there is no need for an interpreter running on the target platform
Disadvantages:
you have to write the generator
changing things requires a recompile
Extension Language
Tcl, python and other languages work well in conjunction with c code, and will allow you to specify the configuration behavior in a dynamic language rather than mucking around with c typing and strings and and and...
Advantages:
dynamic language probably means the configuration code is simpler
change configuration options without recompiling
Disadvantages:
you need the dynamic language running on the target platform
Mini language
You could write your own embedded mini-language.
Advantages:
No need to recompile
Because you write it it will run on your target
Disadvantages:
You have to write it yourself
How much does the struct change from version to version? When I did this kind of thing I hardcoded it into the PC app, which then worked out what the packet meant from the firmware version - but the only changes were usually an extra field added onto the end every couple of months.
I suppose I would use something like the following if I wanted to go down the metadata route.
typedef struct
{
unsigned char field1;
unsigned short field2;
unsigned char a_string[4];
} data;
typedef struct
{
unsigned char name[16];
unsigned char type;
unsigned char min;
unsigned char max;
} field_info;
field_info fields[3];
void init_meta(void)
{
strcpy(fields[0].name, "field1");
fields[0].type = TYPE_UCHAR;
fields[0].min = 1;
fields[0].max = 250;
strcpy(fields[1].name, "field2");
fields[1].type = TYPE_USHORT;
fields[1].min = 0;
fields[1].max = 0xffff;
strcpy(fields[2].name, "a_string");
fields[2].type = TYPE_STRING;
fields[2].min = 0 // n/a
fields[2].max = 0 // n/a
}
void send_meta(void)
{
rs232_packet packet;
memcpy(packet.payload, fields, sizeof(fields));
packet.length = sizeof(fields);
send_packet(packet);
}

What is the equivalent of a C pointer in VB.NET?

What is the most similar thing in VB.NET to a pointer, meaning like C pointers?
I have a TreeView within a class. I need to expose some specific nodes (or leaves) that can be modified by external objects.
C#, and I also believe VB.Net, will work on the concept of references. Essentially, it means when you say
A a = new A()
the 'a' is a reference, and not the actual object.
So if I go
B b = a
b is another reference to the same underlying object.
When you want to expose any internal objects, you can simply do so by exposing 'properties'. Make sure, that you do not provide setters for the properties, or that if you do, there is code to check if the value is legal.
ByRef is used when you want to pass the object as a parameter, and when you want the called method to be able to change the reference (as opposed to the object).
As mentioned above, if you post some code, it will be easier to explain.
Nathan W has already suggested the IntPtr structure which can represent a pointer or handle, however, whilst this structure is part and parcel of the .NET framework, .NET really doesn't have pointers per-say, and certainly not like C pointers.
This is primarily because the .NET Framework is a "managed" platform and memory is managed, assigned, allocated and deallocated by the CLR without you, the developer, having to worry about it (i.e. no malloc commands!) It's mostly because of this memory management that you don't really have access to direct memory addresses.
The closest thing within the .NET Framework that can be thought of as a "pointer" (but really isn't one) is the delegate. You can think of a delegate as a "function pointer", however, it's not really a pointer in the strictest sense. Delegates add type-safety to calling functions, allowing code that "invokes" a delegate instance to ensure that it is calling the correct method with the correct parameters. This is unlike "traditional" pointers as they are not type-safe, and merely reference a memory address.
Delegates are everywhere in the .NET Framework, and whenever you use an event, or respond to an event, you're using delegates.
If you want to use C# rather than VB.NET, you can write code that is marked as "unsafe". This allows code within the unsafe block to run outside of the protection of the CLR. This, in turn, allows usage of "real" pointers, just like C, however, they still do have some limitations (such as what can be at the memory address that is pointed to).
Best way to do it is to just allocate everything manually:
You can move up OR down each Stack at free will without Pushing or Popping.
Dim Stack(4095) as Byte 'for 8bit - 1 bytes each entry
Dim Stack(4095) as Integer 'for 16bit - 2 bytes each entry
Dim Stack(4095) as Long 'for 32bit - 4 bytes each entry
Dim Stack(4095) as Double 'for 64 bit - 8 bytes each entry
Dim i as integer 'Where i is your Stack Pointer(0 through 4095)
Dim int as integer 'Byte Integer Long or Double (8, 16, 32, 64 bit)
for i = 0 to 4095
int = i
Stack(i) = int/256 'For 8bit Byte
Stack(i) = int 'For 16bit Integer
Stack(i) = Microsoft.VisualBasic.MKL$(int) 'For 32bit Long
Stack(i) = Microsoft.VisualBasic.MKD$(int) 'For 64bit Double
MsgBox(Microsoft.VisualBasic.HEX$(Stack(i))) 'To See Bitwise Length Per Entry
next i
If you're looking to pass something back from a subroutine you can pass it by reference - as in "ByRef myParamter as Object".
Best answer depends, to some degree, on what you're trying to do.
If you are using VB the only thing that is really close to a pointer is a IntPtr. If you have access to C# you can use unsafe C# code to do pointer work.