I've been working non-stop for the last three days on a completely managed interface to Erlang. At this point, I've decided that there simply must be an easier way. I've got a little over 3000 lines and it's not even in a compilable state yet. To be honest, I'm getting lost in my own code.
So, I then remembered that Erlang has a C library called erl_interface. Unfortunately, it only comes as a .LIB file, which isn't usable via P/Invoke. I'm now investigating ways to expose the static library through a DLL.
I'd like to stay away from Visual C++, mostly because I'm not a C/C++ programmer by nature and I find it really difficult to configure. TinyC is my compiler of choice when working with anything in C.
How can I go about this?
I know I can link erl_interface to a DLL, but how can I expose the functions? Do I have to essentially wrap each and every one of them in my own exports? That probably won't be a problem, since I could write a script to generate the code from the header file. But is there an easier way that I just don't know about?
Also, please don't recommend OTP.NET. It's a nice library, but I'm looking to use this is a large project, so I'd like to keep it in-house.
So, your problem is one of turning a static lib into a dynamic one.
The least-effort solution would be to write a thin shim file in 'C', that just delegates to the files in the .lib e.g.
ReturnType my_method1(args...) {
return real_method1(args...);
}
...
and build a DLL from that and the static lib.
Afterthought -- There is another approach you could take -- which is build the .lib into a C++/CLI assembly and do the transition/wrapping in that. It's what C++/CLi is there for, after all.
If you want some help with interfacing to Erlang with C, have a look at "EPAPI" (Erlang Port API) link text. You can of course browse the source code since it is hosted on Google Code. A DEBIAN repository is also available.
Related
Is there any way, I can prevent my c++ cli project from being decompiled if someone uses a C# decompiler, because I tried to decompile the .exe i made in ILSpy and it showed my whole code, so is there any way I can prevent this?
Thanks
as ancient as this thread is, I ran across it with the same question, and a newish answer. Can't specify the minimum version for this one, but
[module:System::Runtime::CompilerServices::SuppressIldasmAttribute];
on top of each .cpp module did the trick for me:
I didn't investigate much further, yet.
Another useful thing is to add
#pragma unmanaged
to each .cpp that does not contain .net code.
You can
Use a .NET obfuscator.
Or
Only use C++CLI for the boundaries of your app which require to Interact with .NET. And implement your logic in a native C++ library.
I have a few different projects that all get mixed and matched into different types of solutions.
For projects, I currently have
EngineProj: c++, built as a .lib
GameProj: c++, built as a .exe
EditorProj: c++/clr, built as a .exe
For solutions, I currently have
Game: c++, built with EngineProj and GameProj
Editor: c++/clr, built with EngineProj and EditorProj
This has worked great for games. I have been able to make a few different game solutions that keep reusing the shared EngineProj.
The Editor solution has EditorProj build a .exe with a WindowsForm object called EditorForm. This is used to edit generic game data that is common for all game solutions.
Now, though, I want to be able to do the same thing for my Editor that I do with my games. I want to be able to make game specific versions of the Editor that reuse as much project setup and code as possible. Here is what I am working towards.
For projects, I am planning
EngineProj: c++, built as a .lib
GameCoreProj: c++, built as a .lib
GameExeProj: c++, built as a .exe (a very thin and small project)
EditorCoreProj: c++/clr, built as a .lib
EditorGameExeProj: c++/clr, built as a .exe
For solutions, I am planning
Game: c++, built with EngineProj, GameCoreProj, and GameExeProj
GameEditor: c++/clr, built with EngineProj, GameCoreProj, EditorCoreProj, and EditorGameExeProj
I am having troubles getting my GameEditor solution to come together.
The idea is for EditorCoreProj to provide the same EditorForm that EditorProj did; only in a .lib instead. EditorGameExeProj would then build with GameCoreProj.lib and EditorCorProj.lib. EditorGameExeProj would support a new WindowsForm object that derives from EditorForm, but implements new features unique to the needs of GameCorProj.
Various forms of unresolved externals have been plaguing me for a couple days now.
It seems that my issues stem from the fact that EditorCoreProj is a c++/clr project.
I read many articles and tried many different approaches, but eventually I found some reading that suggested that making a .lib would never work. It sounds like c++/clr .libs are not supported.
So, then, I tried making EditorCoreProj build as a .dll. For hours, I tried to get EditorGameExeProj to import the .dll. I read that maybe I need to tag everything for export and import. That sounded like a lot of work, and so I started just making some test solutions. However, that continually resulted in unresolved externals, too.
I am pretty new to making a .dll; I have always preferred .libs. Maybe I am just encountering newb issues with .dlls. At this point though, I have spent a couple days trying to get this setup.
And so, finally, my question.
Am I headed in the right direction? Maybe there is something much easier I should be doing?
Thank you for your time
I ended up sticking to the plan, and got everything working. I don't know if there was a better route to take, but this does full-fill all of my needs.
I have created a number of re-usable classes that I use across xcode projects, for example:
Utility
EmailController
MarketingController
FlashLightController
etc
I had been simply copying these class files from and back into a central repository, but now I have a number of apps it is all getting a little confusing from a config management point of view. So I was looking for an alternative.
I started investigating Static Libraries but they seem to be quite a lot of more effort for simply re-using code (e.g. different libs for device vs simulator, still having to have copies of .h files, etc).
Does anyone know of a decent alternative for quick and easy code reuse?
Thanks, Charlie
You can put the code files into a project without actually copying them into the project. In other words, just keep the class files in a completely separate location. Import them into many projects, but uncheck the option to copy them in. The projects will still refer to them successfully. Now a change made in the class files will propagate to every project that uses them.
Also, consider whether workspaces will help you.
In my view, almost anything is better than making a library or framework!
Static libraries would probably be your best bet, as I have used them and have found them to be pretty easy to use. (I haven't had to use different libraries for device or simulator, mine works on them all). Having the header isn't that annoying, and static libraries are really the only way (outside of dynamic libraries, which are banned by apple) other than copying the files to reuse code.
I am writing a Mac OS X desktop application in which I want to be able to parse fragments of Objective-C such as variable and method declarations, as well as full Objective-C header and source files.
It looks to me as if I should be making use of Clang to do this, but I could do with some pointers and examples on how to integrate it as a library in my project, and how to invoke it to parse strings and files.
Can anyone provide me with any help on this?
You probably want libclang, code browsable at http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/ (though you'll need to checkout the entire Clang repo to build it). There's very little documentation around on it, sadly. There is a presentation at http://llvm.org/devmtg/2010-11/Gregor-libclang.pdf that might help kickstart things, but mostly just some hunting through the code is the way to go.
Clang is actually more modular than libclang provides for (you can import just the components you want). If you've adventurous, there are examples at http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/examples/.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Objective-C Code Obfuscation
I am trying to put together an iOS package that can be reused in multiple apps. I would like to be able to bundle it up for others to easily plug in and use, and I would like to obfuscate the code so that no one can read it.
What would you recommend between building a framework, a static library, or another solution to accomplish this and why?
If you're distributing for iOS, you have two options:
Distribute a precompiled binary and headers
Distribute the source
Since you're asking about hiding stuff, I don't think #2 is what you're looking for.
As for #1, the best you can do is just not tell 3rd party users about more stuff. They'll still be able to use the runtime to find methods and properties and instance variables, etc. If you're doing everything in C-land (ie, no Objective-C classes), then they can still use things like otool to dump symbols.
In short:
It's probably not worth trying to "obfuscate" your code. Just tell them about the stuff they need to know about, then give them a .a file and the headers they need.
A framework is the standard Cocoa approach to shared code. You can distribute a framework as a compiled code library and a collection of public headers without making any of the underlying Objective-C soure code visible. Of course, a dedicated hacker could still read the machine code, but this would be a big undertaking, and probably not worth the time they would have to spend on it.
If you are really concerned about sensitive code, you could consider an internet-based service, in which your library calls out to a remote server under your control to perform some business logic. This approach is quite a bit more involved, and does not offer as much flexibility for your customers.