I recently started writing a C++/CLI wrapper for a native c++ library. I'm now getting this compile warning
"warning LNK4249: directive '/CLRTHREADATTRIBUTE:STA' conflicts with command line; ignored"
My c++/cli wrapper is set up for MTA in the linker's command line arguments, but I have no idea what file or project is trying to give the STA directive.
I did enough reading to get worried about .NET forcing libraries to become multi-threaded. I've read that this mostly affects my application's use of COM, but I am not really sure if or where my DLL uses COM. I use the interop services to marshal string data and am using 'msclr\auto_gcroot.h' to point to managed classes from unmanaged ones. In the native c++ library that is being wrapped, I include the following headers:
#include <afxwin.h> // MFC core and standard components
#include <afxext.h> // MFC extensions
#include <afxmt.h>
#include "Winsock2.h."
#include <time.h>
Does anybody have any advice that could help me avoid painful experiences in the future, or should I just not worry about it?
So far so good. I haven't seen any real problems with this; I think it is just because MFC is a single threaded library, so it wants to compile that way. So, for my case, I think as long as I treat all MFC objects and such as not thread-safe I'll be okay.
Related
I've run into a somewhat unexpected behavior in Xcode/Objective-C. I know it's probably not advised, but if I want to make my own struct in_addr in a .m file, it seems I can't. This implies something rather strange about namespaces and symbol pollution in Objective-C. The same seems to apply for many other networking types and perhaps other POSIX-y things as well.
I came up with a very basic example that demonstrates this behavior. Note that this snippet is the entire contents of the .m file.
#define _SYS_SOCKET_H_
#define _NETINET_IN_H_
#include <stdint.h>
struct in_addr {
uint32_t foo;
};
which yields the build error Redefinition of 'in_addr'.
This implies some fairly strange things about Objective-C. For starters, I wouldn't expect <stdint.h> to bring in any networking types. But even allowing that it might, defining _NETINET_IN_H_ first should prevent the definition of struct in_addr. And yet even still, this code refuses to build.
Is it possible to somehow forgo this forced symbol visibility? Is there a list of symbols that are included, no matter what? Is there a good reason for this behavior?
edit: Stranger still, if i remove <stdint.h> and change the uint32_t to int, this actually does compile.
If you go into the Report navigator and read the full error emitted by the clang tool, you'll see a big hint:
In module 'Darwin' imported from /Users/csrstka/Desktop/asdfasdf/asdfasdf/main.m:1:
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.13.sdk/usr/include/netinet/in.h:302:12: note: field has name 's_addr' here
in_addr_t s_addr;
As you can see, the existing in_addr is coming from the Darwin module, which is implicitly imported due to your #include of stdint.h, which is part of the Darwin module. You can see this if you go to Product > Perform Action > Preprocess in Xcode—instead of copying in all the headers you've imported, there's just one line about importing Darwin.C.stdint.
Basically, there are a few purposes for modules; they improve compile times by cutting down on redundant compilation tasks, and they prevent people from messing with library headers via #defines like you're trying to do. ;-) For more on Objective-C modules, how they work, and the rationale behind them, see this link:
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html#introduction
Of particular interest to your question are the following excerpts:
The primary user-level feature of modules is the import operation, which provides access to the API of software libraries. However, today’s programs make extensive use of #include, and it is unrealistic to assume that all of this code will change overnight. Instead, modules automatically translate #include directives into the corresponding module import. For example, the include directive
#include <stdio.h>
will be automatically mapped to an import of the module std.io. Even with specific import syntax in the language, this particular feature is important for both adoption and backward compatibility: automatic translation of #include to import allows an application to get the benefits of modules (for all modules-enabled libraries) without any changes to the application itself. Thus, users can easily use modules with one compiler while falling back to the preprocessor-inclusion mechanism with other compilers.
And later on:
If any submodule of a module is imported into any part of a program, the entire top-level module is considered to be part of the program. As a consequence of this, Clang may diagnose conflicts between an entity declared in an unimported submodule and an entity declared in the current translation unit, and Clang may inline or devirtualize based on knowledge from unimported submodules.
Or, if you'd prefer to turn them off and get more traditional C-like behavior, you can simply set Enable Modules (C and Objective-C) to No in Xcode's Build Settings, or compile without the -fmodules flag if you're using the command line.
I am going back to school where we have to take a C++ class.
I am familiar with the language but there's a few things I have never heard of...
Generally, my teacher said that plain C++ is "unsafe". It generates "unsafe code" (whatever that means). That's why we have to use C++/CLI which is supposed to make "safe" code.
Now... isn't CLI just a Microsoft .NET extension?
He is also telling us to use Console::WriteLine() instead of cout. Since Console::WriteLine() is "safe" and cout is "unsafe".
All this seems weird to me... Can anyone clarify this?
Thanks!
To put it very blunt and simple.
Safe
By "safe code" you teacher probably means managed code. That is code where you don't have to "care" about pointers and memory, you have a garbagecollector that takes care of this for your. You are dealing with refrences. Examples of languages built like this is java and c#. Code is compiled to a "fictional" opcodes(intermediate language, IL for C#), and compiles and run realtime(JIT, just in time compilation). The IL generated code, will have to be converted to real native platform based opcodes, in java this is one of things the jvm does. You may easily disassemble code from languages like these. And they may run on several platforms without a recompilation.
Unsafe
By "unsafe code" the teacher means ordinary native c++ unmanaged code, where all memory and resource management is handled by you. This makes room for human error, and memory leaks, resource leaks and other memory errors, you don't usually deal with in managed languages. It also compiles to pure bytecode (native assembly opcodes), which means that you have to compile your code for each platform you intend to target. You will encounter that you will have to make a lot of code specific for each platform, depending on what you are going to code. It's nice to see that simple things such as threading, which where platform dependent, now is a part of the c++ standard.
Then you have c++/CLI, which basicly is a mix. You may use managed code from the .net framework in c++, and it may be used as a bridge, and be used to make wrappers.
Console::WriteLine() is managed .net code, safe.
cout is standard iso c++ from <iostream>, unsafe
You find a related post here, with a broader answer here and here :)
Edit
As pointed out by Deduplicator below this is also of interest for you
Hope it helps.
Cheers
In the world of .NET, "safe" is synonymous with "verifiable" type safety. In Visual C++, it's enabled by /clr:safe.
/clr:safe will prevent you from using std::cout or any other function or type implemented in native code, because the metadata needed by .NET's verifier does not exist for native functions. MSIL which Stigandr mentioned can be used for just-in-time compilation, but even when compilation to native code is performed ahead of time, the MSIL is provided alongside the compiled native code and serves as a proof of its type safety which the verifier inspects.
Standard (native / unmanaged) C++ does check type safety during compilation. But that can be disabled by casts, and without runtime type checks, which C++ does not provide as part of the language, pointer arithmetic (e.g. array index out of bounds) can also violate type safety, as can using pointers to freed objects. C++ isn't just a language though, it is also a standard library, where you find smart pointers and smart collections that do the necessary runtime checks, so it can be just as type-safe as any managed framework.
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 writing a CLR wrapper for an unmanaged C++ library.
There are two files I'm including from the unmanaged lib:
//MyCLIWrapper.h
#include "C:\PATH\TO\UNMANAGED\Header.h"
#include "C:\PATH\TO\UNMANAGED\Body.cpp"
Then I'm writing CLI implementations for the unmanaged library functions:
//MyCLIWrapper.h
// includes ...
void MyCLIWrapper::ManagedFunction()
{
UnmanagedFunction(); // this function is called successfuly
}
However, if my Unmanaged function contains calls to other functions that are defined in other unmanaged header files. This causes a compiler linkage error.
If I add includes to the unmanaged headers that define these functions, my errors get resolved. However, there is a lot of functions, and a lot of includes required.
Is there a different way to approach this?
EDIT:
P.S.
My managed code is in a separate Visual Studio project (output - DLL), and the compile settings are set to /CLR. Unmanaged code is in a separate Win32 project (output - DLL).
Also, after more research I concluded that theoretically I could set my Win32 unmanaged project to CLR and just add my managed classes and headers in there as an entry point, and then it would all compile into a single DLL file. That would probably solve (?) the linkage errors. However, I would prefer to preserve the loose coupling as well as the additional series of problems that can raise from setting my unmanaged project to CLR.
EDIT #2:
The unmanaged class that I'm referencing (body.cpp, header.h) contains includes to the required files that define the functions that are causing the problems. However, my managed code doesn't pick up on the includes that are in the unmanaged body.cpp and header.h.
Linker errors are a different kettle of fish from compiler errors. You forgot to document the exact linker errors you see, but a very common mishap when you compile code with /clr in effect is that the default calling convention for non-C++ member function changes. The default is __clrcall, a convention that's optimized for managed code. While functions compiled without /clr defaults to __cdecl. Which changes the way the function name is mangled. You see this back in the linker error message, is shows that it is looking for a __clrcall function and can't find it.
You'll need to either explicitly declare your functions in the .h file with __cdecl. Or tell the compiler that these functions are not managed code. Which is the best way to tackle it:
#pragma managed(push, off)
#include "unmanagedHeader.h"
#pragma managed(pop)
Solution was fairly simple:
I added both unmanaged and managed projects to a single solution in Visual Studio.
Set the unmanaged project's "Configuration Type" to "Static Library" (.lib).
Right click on the managed project -> References -> Add Reference -> Projects -> -> Add Reference.
Then in my managed class, I include the header.h (only) just like I did in my question.
Compiled successfully!
Thank you
I have a C++ project (visual studio 2010) which consists of native code and c++/cli code as well. I cant compile the whole project with /clr, so I just do it for the respective c++/cli files. My Problem is that a header file cant be compiled with /clr, but I want to make some c++/cli functions reusable within the whole project and therefor define the method prototypes in a header file to include it in every file where I need it. Is there a solution? I have tried to define some mixed code method prototypes in a header file, but /clr must be switched on for that to compile.
Here is my example:
Test.h
#include <Windows.h>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using std::vector;
using std::string;
#include <msclr/marshal.h>
#pragma managed
using namespace msclr::interop;
using namespace System;
using namespace System::IO;
using namespace System::Runtime::InteropServices;
public ref class Test
{
public:
int Foo();
};
Test.cpp
#include "Test.h"
int Test::Foo()
{
return 4;
}
Intellisense is complaining with errors in Test.h like c++/cli must be enabled to use #using. But I think this is negligible and it would compile anyway.
Compilation aborts with a Linker Error (sry, i have german VS version)
Fehler 6 error LNK1255: Fehler bei Verknüpfung aufgrund von Metadatenfehlern.
Fehler 4 error LNK2022: Fehler bei Metadatenoperation (8013118D) : Duplizierte Typen (_PROPSHEETPAGEA) wurden gefunden, aber die Typenlayoutinformationen sind nicht konsistent: (0x02000198).
Fehler 5 error LNK2022: Fehler bei Metadatenoperation (8013118D) : Duplizierte Typen (_PROPSHEETPAGEW) wurden gefunden, aber die Typenlayoutinformationen sind nicht konsistent: (0x020001d1).
I definitely dont have a duplicate class "Test" elsewhere, so I dont know where the duplicate comes from. What are typelayout informations and why are they not consistent?
I think you've all missed the point.
You can easily compile a native project with some /clr classes. (For example: A native DLL will still function like a native DLL, however, it can also be loaded into C#, and it's /clr compiled classes can then be accessed in C#.)
That's why such an option exist at the file level. (Right click .cpp: Properties->C\C++->Common Language Runtime Support- /clr)
The problem is:
Communicating between native\managed classes, since .H files cannot be set to use /clr, those cannot be used to reference a managed class elsewhere including other /clr files within the same project. (ie, you can create /clr files, but, they can't talk to each other, nor can you reference them within native portions of the project.)
The best solution I can find is to create a "glue" C# .dll file.
Create a new C# class library, add the Native DLL as a reference, then compile.
Now, in your native project, you can load the C# DLL, and access the natives /clr stuff through it. (The managed code you reference this way can be used with native\managed code.)
It's very possible, but, I cannot find a straightforward way to accomplish this.
That's what the topic is about, there seems to be no way to reference /clr classes due to header files not working when you set /clr at the file level. (ie, a header cannot contain /clr code unless the WHOLE project is set to /clr.)
There must be a way to reference /clr stuff without headers, or C++\CLI is just broken, I can easily load native code into /clr files by using pragma + headers, however, the reverse is looking impossible short of my "glue" solution.
That is what I believe this topic is about.
My method works, but, it's very tricky to get right, and compilation is a pain due to circular dependencies, etc,.
I really hope there is a proper way to do this, I've been looking, and my search led me here...
The real solution, would be to make .h files support /clr, then you could define your managed class in the header, and be able to freely reference it using standard methods, like include\using\pragma, etc,.
Perhaps you're looking for
#if __cplusplus_cli
Documented here on MSDN