Is there a recommended way to wrap a native c++ library by c++ cli?
Not sure if one size fits all, but yeah, it is largely a mechanical process. Your ref class wrapper should declare a private member that's a pointer to your native C++ class. Create the instance in the constructor. You'll need a destructor and a finalizer to delete that instance again.
Then for each function in the native C++ class you write a managed version of it. That's almost always a one-to-one call, you simply call the corresponding native method and let C++ Interop convert the arguments. Sometimes you have to write a bit of glue code to convert a managed argument to the native version of it, particularly if your native method uses 8-bit char* or structure arguments.
You'll find that standard pattern in code in my answer here. I also should mention SWIG, a tool that can automate it. Not sure how good it is, never used it myself.
Related
I want to call members of a C++/CLI class from native C++ code. Compiler is prohibiting me from doing that. I know that we can use native pointers/references in managed code but don't know way of going opposite. Can anyone help me with this by giving a simple example.Thanks in advance.
It can't be done. Memory layout of managed types is determined by the JIT, so unless your native code uses the CLR programming interface, it has no way of discovering and accessing them. Keeping references visible to the garbage collector is another problem, although overcoming that is more straightforward.
However it is possible to create native types with C++/CLI and those will have a memory layout fixed at compile time, so both managed and native code can use them. That is the way to cross the managed-native boundary in reverse. (Function pointers created from delegates are another way to cross in reverse)
I know gcroot is used for holding a refrence to a managed object in a native class, but what about using managed objects as local variables inside an unmanaged class function ?
The compiler does not seem to generate an error on this, but is it "proper" ? Does it hurt performence?
There is no such thing as a local managed object. All managed objects are stored on the heap, required to let the garbage collector do its job. You could only have a reference as a local variable. A pointer at runtime.
Using an managed object reference in an unmanaged function is possible if you compile that code with /clr or #pragma managed in effect. Such code will be translated to IL and gets just-in-time compiled at runtime, just like normal managed code. It won't otherwise have the characteristics of managed code, there is no verification and you'll suffer all the normal pointer bugs. And yes, it can hurt performance because such code doesn't get the normal optimizer love. The optimizer built in the jitter isn't as effective because it works under time constraints.
Compile native code without the /clr option or use #pragma unmanaged inside your code to switch the compiler on-the-fly.
Managed objects, both values of managed value types (value struct, value class, enum class) and handles to managed reference types (ref struct, ref class) can be used inside code which is compiled to MSIL.
And code that is compiled to MSIL can be part of unmanaged objects (for example, a virtual member function of a standard C++ type can be compiled to MSIL, and the Visual C++ compiler "It Just Works" technology will make sure that the v-table is set up correctly). This is extremely useful when forwarding events and callbacks produced by standard C++ code into the managed GUI world. But it is also applicable if you have an algorithm implemented in managed code (perhaps C#) that you want to call from C++.
As Hans mentions, there are performance implications of switching between MSIL and machine code generation for a particular function. But if you are sitting on a native-managed boundary, then compilation to MSIL and use of the "It Just Works" a/k/a "C++ interop" is by far the highest performance alternative.
I am using a C++/CLI Wrapper to access a purely C++ library (-> unmanaged) from a C# framework (-> managed). I want to build in a mechanism which enables the C++ library to push information about its status towards the framework. In my understanding this means that I will have to call at least a managed function from unmanaged code at some point. Is this possible and how can I achieve this?
Many thanks for your help!
Best regards,
Jakob
Use a delegate to let unmanaged code call a managed method. Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate() creates a stub that takes care of the transition, calling an instance method is supported. You can cast the returned pointer to a function pointer usable by the unmanaged code.
You'll find a full code sample in this answer.
I would recommend using a (managed) event for this. You could have your C++ wrapper call a method on your C++/CLI generated class which raises the event.
The event can easily be subscribed to from the C# side, and used like any other C# based event.
How would you build a wrapper to unmanaged code in order to use it in managed code, and when exactly do you have to do that?
You don't often need a wrapper, many DLLs with straight-forward exported C functions can be pinvoked with the [DllImport] attribute. An exception for C exports would be a poorly designed DLL that requires the client code to release memory, that can't be done by the managed code since it doesn't have access to the allocator.
The case where you have to have a wrapper is a native C++ class. Managed code cannot pinvoke it directly since it doesn't know how to create an instance of the class (which requires knowing the size of the object and calling the constructor) nor how to destroy it (which requires calling the destructor). It is pretty easy to do in C++/CLI. Very mechanical, the SWIG project can do it automatically. Learning that tool is however more of an investment than learning how to write the wrapper.
I need to work on converting a very huge c++ project to clr safe. The current c++ project has a lot of stuff from c++ like templates, generics, pointers, storage/stream, ole apis, zlib compression apis, inlines etc. Where can I find the datiled document for this type of conversion? Can you suggest some good book to refer to? If anyone of you have done such conversion, can I get some analysis from you?
I'll just cough up the MSDN Library article titled "How to: Migrate to /clr:safe
Visual C++ can generate verifiable components with using /clr:safe, which causes the compiler to generate errors for each non-verifiable code construct.
The following issues generate verifiability errors:
Native types. Even if it isn't used, the declaration of native classes, structures, pointers, or arrays will prevent compilation.
Global variables
Function calls into any unmanaged library, including common language runtime function calls
A verifiable function cannot contain a static_cast Operator for down-casting. The static_cast operator can be used for casting between primitive types, but for down-casting, safe_cast or a C-Style cast (which is implemented as a safe_cast) must be used.
A verifiable function cannot contain a reinterpret_cast operator (or any C-style cast equivalent).
A verifiable function cannot perform arithmetic on an interior_ptr. It may only assign to it and dereference it.
A verifiable function can only throw or catch pointers to reference types, so value types must be boxed before throwing.
A verifiable function can only call verifiable functions (such that calls to the common language runtime are not allowed, include AtEntry/AtExit, and so global constructors are disallowed).
A verifiable class cannot use Explicit.
If building an EXE, a main function cannot declare any parameters, so GetCommandLineArgs must be used to retrieve command-line arguments.
Making a non-virtual call to a virtual function.
Also, the following keywords cannot be used in verifiable code:
unmanaged and pack pragmas
naked and align __declspec modifiers
__asm
__based
__try and __except
I reckon that will keep you busy for a while. There is no magic wand to wave to turn native C++ into verifiable code. Are you sure this is worth the investment?
The vast majority of native C++ is entirely valid C++/CLI, including templates, inlines, etc, except the CLR STL is rather slow compared to the BCL. Also, native C++ doesn't have generics, only templates.
The reality of compiling as C++/CLI is to check the switch and push compile, and wait for it to throw errors.
Rewriting native C++ into safe C++/CLI will result in a code that is syntactically different, but semantically same as C#. If that is the case, why not rewrite directly in C#?
If you want to avoid what is essentially a complete rewrite, consider the following alternatives:
P/Invoke. Unfortunately, I'm unfamiliar whether this would isolate safe from unsafe code. Even if it can perform the isolation, you'll need to wrap your existing C++ code into procedural, C-like API, so it can be consumed by P/Invoke. On a plus side, unless your API is excessively chatty, you get to keep (most of) your native performance.
Wrapping your C++ into out-of-process COM server and using COM Interop to consume it from the manged code. This way, your managed code is completely protected from any corruption that might happen at C++ end and can remain "safe". The downside is a performance hit that you'll get for out-of-process marshaling and the implementation effort you'll need to expend to correctly implement the COM.