As you may be aware, blocks take -invoke:
void(^foo)() = ^{
NSLog(#"Do stuff");
};
[foo invoke]; // Logs 'Do stuff'
I would like to do the following:
void(^bar)(int) = ^(int k) {
NSLog(#"%d", k);
};
[bar invokeWithParameters:7]; // Want it to log '7', but no such instance method
The ordinary argument-less -invoke works on bar, but it prints a nonsense value.
I can't find a direct message of this kind I can send to a block, nor can I find the original documentation that would describe how blocks take -invoke.
Is there a list of messages accepted by blocks?
(Yes, I have tried to use class_copyMethodList to extract a list of methods from the runtime; there appear to be none.)
Edit: Yes, I'm also aware of invoking the block the usual way (bar(7);). What I'm really after is a selector for a method I can feed into library code that doesn't take blocks (per-se).
You can invoke it like a function:
bar(7);
There's even an example in the documentation that uses exactly the same signature. See Declaring and Using a Block.
The best reference on the behavior of blocks is the Block Language Specification(RTF) document. This mentions certain methods that are supported (copy, retain, etc.) but nothing about an -invoke method.
A blocks very definition is the sum total of "messages" that the block can receive, in terms of the calling parameters/ABI.
This is for a couple of reasons:
First, a block is not a function and a block pointer is not a function pointer. They cannot be used interchangeably.
Secondly, the C ABI is such that you have to have a declaration of the function begin called when the call site is being compiled if the parameters are to be encoded correctly.
The alternative is to use something like NSInvocation, which allows the arguments to be encoded individually, but even that still requires full C ABI knowledge for each individual argument.
Ultimately, if you can compile a call site that has all the parameters, be it an Objective-C method or a function call, to the fidelity necessary to make the compiler happy, you can convert that call site into a call to the block.
I.e. unless you clarify your question a bit, what you are asking for is either already supported or nigh impossible due to the vagaries of the C ABI.
Related
I recently started a project where I require to do swizzling.
After going through many tutorials I got a question, What is the difference between Implementation and function pointer?
From memory, an IMP is a memory-address just like a function pointer, and can be invoked just like an ordinary C function. However it is guaranteed to use objective-C messaging convention, where:
The first argument is the object to operate on (self).
The second argument is the _cmd (SELECTOR) to be invoked. I believe this is so to support dynamic features, such as ObjC message forwarding where we could wrap the original implementation in a proxy, say to start a transaction or perform a security check, or, for a Cocoa specific example, add some property observation cruft, by magic, at run-time. While we already have the function signature, I could be helpful, in some cases, to know "how did I get here?" with the message signature.
Following arguments, if any, are according to the method contract.
Background as I understand it: Objective-C method invocations are basically a C function call with two hidden parameters (the receiver and the selector). The Objective-C runtime contains a function named objc_msgSend() that allows to invoke methods that way. Unfortunately, when a function returns a struct some special treatment may be needed. There are arcane (some might say insane) rules that govern whether the structure is returned like other values or whether it's actually returned by reference in a hidden first argument. For Objective-C there's another function called objc_msgSend_stret() that must be used in these cases.
The question: Given a method, can NSMethodSignature or something else tell me whether I have to use objc_msgSend() or objc_msgSend_stret()? So far we have found out that NSMethodSignature knows this, it prints it in its debug output, but there doesn't seem to be a public API.
In case you want to respond with "why on earth would you want to do that?!", please read the following before you do: https://github.com/erikdoe/ocmock/pull/41
Objective-C uses the same underlying ABI for C on a given architecture, because methods are just C functions with implicit self and _cmd arguments.
In other words, if you have a method:
- (SomeStructType)myMeth:(SomeArgType)arg;
then really this is a plain C function:
SomeStructType myMeth(id self, SEL _cmd, SomeArgType arg);
I'm pretty sure you already know that, but I'm merely mentioning it for other readers.
In other words, you want to ask libffi or any kind of similar library how SomeStructType would be returned for that architecture.
NSMethodSignature has a -methodReturnType that you can inspect to see if the return type is a struct. Is this what you're trying to do?
From http://www.sealiesoftware.com/blog/archive/2008/10/30/objc_explain_objc_msgSend_stret.html:
The rules for which struct types return in registers are always
arcane, sometimes insane. ppc32 is trivial: structs never return in
registers. i386 is straightforward: structs with sizeof exactly equal
to 1, 2, 4, or 8 return in registers. x86_64 is more complicated,
including rules for returning floating-point struct fields in FPU
registers, and ppc64's rules and exceptions will make your head spin.
The gory details are documented in the Mac OS X ABI Guide, though as
usual if the documentation and the compiler disagree then the
documentation is wrong.
If you're calling objc_msgSend directly and need to know whether to
use objc_msgSend_stret for a particular struct type, I recommend the
empirical approach: write a line of code that calls your method,
compile it on each architecture you care about, and look at the
assembly code to see which dispatch function the compiler uses.
my question as the title says.obviously, the first parameter was used for this pointer , in some taste of c++.what about the second one? thak you.
The signature of objc_msgSend() is:
id objc_msgSend(id self, SEL op, ...);
Every method call is compiled down to a call to this function. I.e., if you call:
[anArray objectAtIndex:42];
That will be compiled as if it were:
objc_msgSend(anArray, #selector(objectAtIndex:), 42);
Now, to your question, why do methods get compiled down to a function that has the SEL as the second argument. Or, more specifically, why is this method:
- (id)objectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index;
Exactly equivalent to this C function:
id object_at_index(id object, SEL _cmd, NSUInteger index);
The answer is speed speed speed.
Speed
Specifically, by doing this, then objc_msgSend() never has to rewrite the stack frame* and it can also use a tail call optimization to jump directly to the method invocation. This is the same reason why you never see objc_msgSend() in backtraces in the debugger (save for when you actually crash/break in the messenger).
objc_msgSend() uses the object and the _cmd to look up the implementation of the method and then, quite literally, jumps to that implementation.
Very fast. Stack frame untouched.
And, as others have stated, having _cmd around in the method implementation can be handy for a variety of reasons. As well, it also means that the messenger can do neat tricks like proxy support via NSInvocation and the like.
*rewriting the stack frame can be insanely complex and expensive. Some of the arguments might be in registers some of the time, etc... All architecture dependent ABI nastiness. One of the biggest challenges to writing things like imp_implementationWithBlock() was figuring out how to do so without touching the stack because doing so would have been too slow and too bloated to be viable.
The purpose of having the second parameter contain the selector is to enable a common dispatch mechanism. As such, the method dispatch code always expects the second parameter to be the selector, and dispatches based on that, or follows the inheritance chain up, or even creates an NSInvocation and calls forwardInvocation:.
Generally, only system-level routines use the selector argument, although it's rather nice to have it when you hit an exception or are in the debugger trying to figure out what routine is giving you difficulties if you are using forwardInvocation
From the documentation:
Discussion
This data type is a pointer to the start of the function that implements the method. This function uses standard C calling conventions as implemented for the current CPU architecture. The first argument is a pointer to self (that is, the memory for the particular instance of this class, or, for a class method, a pointer to the metaclass). The second argument is the method selector. The method arguments follow.
In Objective-C when you call a method you need to know the target, the selector and the eventual arguments. Let's suppose that you are trying to do this manually: how can you know which method to call if you don't know the selector? Do you call some random method? No, you call the right method because you know the method name.
In the objective-C runtime, why does method_getNumberOfArguments return two more results than the selector would imply?
For example, why does #selector(initWithPrice:color:) return 4?
TL;DR
Alright. Just to set the record straight, yes, the first two arguments to any objective-c method are self and _cmd, always in that order.
A brief history of Objective-C
However, the more interesting subject is the why to this scenario. To do that, we must first look into the history of objc. Without further ado, let's get started.
Way back in 1983, Brad Cox, the 'God' of objective-c, wanted to create an object-oriented runtime-based language on top of C, for good performance and flexibility across platforms. As a result, the very first Objective-C 'compilers' were just simple preprocessors of Objective-C source converted to their C-runtime equivalents, and then compiled with the platform specific C compiler tool.
However, C was not designed for objects, and that was the most fundamental thing that Objective-C had to surmount. While C is a robust and flexible language, runtime support is one of it's critical downfalls.
During the very early design phase of Objective-C, it was decided that objects would be a purely heap-based pointer design, so that they could be passed between any function without weird copy semantics and such (this changed a bit with Obj-C++ and ARC, but that's too wide of a scope for this post), and that every method should be self aware (acually, as bbum points out, it was an optimization for using the same stack frame as the original function call), so that you could have, in theory, multiple method names mapped to the same selector, as follows:
// this is a completely valid objc 1.0 method declaration
void *nameOrAge(id self, SEL _cmd) {
if (_cmd == #selector(name)) {
return "Richard";
}
if (_cmd == #selector(age)) {
return (void *) (intptr_t) 16;
}
return NULL;
}
This function, then could be theoretically mapped to two selectors, name and age, and perform conditional code based on which one is invoked. In general Objective-C code, this is not too big of a deal, as it's quite difficult with ARC now to map functions to selectors, due to casting and such, but the language has evolved quite a bit from then.
Hopefully, that helps you to understand the why behind the two 'invisible' arguments to an Objective-C method, with the first one being the object that was invoked, and the second one being the method that was invoked on that object.
The first two arguments are the hidden arguments self and _cmd.
I'm looking for a way to make an NSInvocation invoke a specific IMP. By default, it invokes the "lowest" IMP it can find (ie, the most-recently-overridden version), but I'm looking for a way to make it invoke an IMP from higher up in the inheritance chain. The IMP I want to invoke is determined dynamically, or else I'd be able to use the super keyword or something like that.
My thought was to use the -forwardInvocation: mechanism to capture a message (easy and already working) and then alter the IMP so it goes to a method that is neither the super implementation nor the furthest descendent's implementation. (hard)
The only thing I've found that comes remotely close is AspectObjectiveC, but that requires libffi, which makes it non-iOS compatible. Ideally I'd like this to be cross platform.
Any ideas?
disclaimer: i'm just experimenting
Trying out #bbum's idea of a trampoline function
So I think I've got things mostly set up; I've got the following trampoline that gets correctly added via class_addMethod(), and it does get entered:
id dd_trampolineFunction(id self, SEL _cmd, ...) {
IMP imp = [self retrieveTheProperIMP];
self = [self retrieveTheProperSelfObject];
asm(
"jmp %0\n"
:
: "r" (imp)
);
return nil; //to shut up the compiler
}
I've verified that both the proper self and the proper IMP are the right things prior to the JMP, and the _cmd parameter is also coming in properly. (in other words, I correctly added this method).
However, something is going on. I sometimes find myself jumping to a method (usually not the right one) with a nil self and _cmd. Other times I'll just crash in the middle of nowhere with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS. Ideas? (it's been a long time since I've done anything in assembly...) I'm testing this on x86_64.
NSInvocation is just an object representation of a message send. As such, it can't invoke a specific IMP any more than a normal message send could. In order to have an invocation call a specific IMP, you'd either need to write a custom NSInvocation class that goes through the IMP-calling routine or you'd have to write a trampoline that implements the behavior and then create an invocation that represents a message to the trampoline (i.e. you basically wouldn't be using NSInvocation for much of anything).
Added long after the fact, for reference:
You can do it with private API. Put this category somewhere convenient:
#interface NSInvocation (naughty)
-(void)invokeUsingIMP:(IMP)imp;
#end
and voila, it does exactly what you'd expect. I dug up this gem from one of Mike Ash's old blog posts.
Private API tricks like this are great for research or in-house code. Just remember to excise it from your appstore-bound builds.
Given that you already have the IMP, you simply need a way to do a very raw forward of the method call to said IMP. And given that you are willing to use an NSInvocation like solution, then you could also build a similar proxy class.
If I were faced with this, I would create a simple proxying class that contained the IMP to be called and the target object (you'll need to set the self parameter). Then, I would write a trampoline function in assembly that takes the first argument, assumes it is an instance of the proxying class, grabs the self, stuffs it into the register holding argument 0, grabs the IMP and *JMPs to it as a tail call.
With trampoline in hand, you would then add that trampoline as an IMP for any selector on the proxying class that you want forwarded to a particular IMP....
To achieve any kind of generic mechanism like this, the key is to avoid anything having to do with rewriting the stack frame. Avoid the C ABI. Avoid moving arguments about.
An untested idea:
Could you use object_setClass() to force the selection of the IMP that you want? That is…
- (void)forwardInvocation:(NSInvocation *)invocation {
id target = [invocation target];
Class targetClass = classWithTheImpIWant();
Class originalClass = objc_setClass(target, targetClass);
[invocation invoke];
objc_setClass(target, originalClass);
}
I think your best choice is to use libffi. Have you seen the port to iOS at https://github.com/landonf/libffi-ios? I haven't tried the port, but i have successfully invoked IMP with arbitrary arguments on the Mac.
Have a look at JSCocoa https://github.com/parmanoir/jscocoa it includes code to help you prepare a ffi_cif structure from a Method and it also contains a version of libffi that should compile on iOS. (Haven't tested either)
You should probably have a look at how we swizzle the implementation of a certain method on an instance of an object in https://github.com/tuenti/TMInstanceMethodSwizzler
Basically, you swizzle the method for all object of a class so when its called it look up in a dictionary whats is the implementation which has to be called for the target object, falling back to the original implementation if not found.
You can also use the private invokeWithImp: method, but this is discouraged if you intent to submit the app to the store.
you could add the IMP to the class using class_addMethod under a new selector and invoke that selector.
the temporary method can't be removed though.