1. 技术文章
  2. How to design a C / C++ library to be usable in many client languages? [closed]

How to design a C / C++ library to be usable in many client languages? [closed]

由 旧巷老猫 提交于 2019-11-29 19:51:56

Mostly correct. Straight procedural interface is the best. (which is not entirely the same as C btw(**), but close enough)

I interface DLLs a lot(*), both open source and commercial, so here are some points that I remember from daily practice, note that these are more recommended areas to research, and not cardinal truths:

  • Watch out for decoration and similar "minor" mangling schemes, specially if you use a MS compiler. Most notably the stdcall convention sometimes leads to decoration generation for VB's sake (decoration is stuff like @6 after the function symbol name)
  • Not all compilers can actually layout all kinds of structures:
    • so avoid overusing unions.
    • avoid bitpacking
    • and preferably pack the records for 32-bit x86. While theoretically slower, at least all compilers can access packed records afaik, and the official alignment requirements have changed over time as the architecture evolved
  • On Windows use stdcall. This is the default for Windows DLLs. Avoid fastcall, it is not entirely standarized (specially how small records are passed)
  • Some tips to make automated header translation easier:
    • macros are hard to autoconvert due to their untypeness. Avoid them, use functions
    • Define separate types for each pointer types, and don't use composite types (xtype **) in function declarations.
    • follow the "define before use" mantra as much as possible, this will avoid users that translate headers to rearrange them if their language in general requires defining before use, and makes it easier for one-pass parsers to translate them. Or if they need context info to auto translate.
  • Don't expose more than necessary. Leave handle types opague if possible. It will only cause versioning troubles later.
  • Do not return structured types like records/structs or arrays as returntype of functions.
  • always have a version check function (easier to make a distinction).
  • be careful with enums and boolean. Other languages might have slightly different assumptions. You can use them, but document well how they behave and how large they are. Also think ahead, and make sure that enums don't become larger if you add a few fields, break the interface. (e.g. on Delphi/pascal by default booleans are 0 or 1, and other values are undefined. There are special types for C-like booleans (byte,16-bit or 32-bit word size, though they were originally introduced for COM, not C interfacing))
  • I prefer stringtypes that are pointer to char + length as separate field (COM also does this). Preferably not having to rely on zero terminated. This is not just because of security (overflow) reasons, but also because it is easier/cheaper to interface them to Delphi native types that way.
  • Memory always create the API in a way that encourages a total separation of memory management. IOW don't assume anything about memory management. This means that all structures in your lib are allocated via your own memory manager, and if a function passes a struct to you, copy it instead of storing a pointer made with the "clients" memory management. Because you will sooner or later accidentally call free or realloc on it :-)
  • (implementation language, not interface), be reluctant to change the coprocessor exception mask. Some languages change this as part of conforming to their standards floating point error(exception-)handling.
  • Always pair a callbacks with an user configurable context. This can be used by the user to give the the callback state without defining global variables. (like e.g. an object instance)
  • be careful with the coprocessor status word. It might be changed by others and break your code, and if you change it, other code might stop working. The status word is generally not saved/restored as part of calling conventions. At least not in practice.
  • don't use C style varargs parameters. Not all languages allow variable number of parameters in an unsafe way (*) Delphi programmer by day, a job that involves interfacing a lot of hardware and thus translating vendor SDK headers. By night Free Pascal developer, in charge of, among others, the Windows headers.

(**) This is because what "C" means binary is still dependant on the used C compiler, specially if there is no real universal system ABI. Think of stuff like:

  • C adding an underscore prefix on some binary formats (a.out, Coff?)
  • sometimes different C compilers have different opinions on what to do with small structures passed by value. Officially they shouldn't support it at all afaik, but most do.
  • structure packing sometimes varies, as do details of calling conventions (like skipping integer registers or not if a parameter is registerable in a FPU register)

===== automated header conversions ====

While I don't know SWIG that well, I know and use some delphi specific header tools( h2pas, Darth/headconv etc).

However I never use them in fully automatic mode, since more often then not the output sucks. Comments change line or are stripped, and formatting is not retained.

I usually make a small script (in Pascal, but you can use anything with decent string support) that splits a header up, and then try a tool on relatively homogeneous parts (e.g. only structures, or only defines etc).

Then I check if I like the automated conversion output, and either use it, or try to make a specific converter myself. Since it is for a subset (like only structures) it is often way easier than making a complete header converter. Of course it depends a bit what my target is. (nice, readable headers or quick and dirty). At each step I might do a few substitutions (with sed or an editor).

The most complicated scheme I did for Winapi commctrl and ActiveX/comctl headers. There I combined IDL and the C header (IDL for the interfaces, which are a bunch of unparsable macros in C, the C header for the rest), and managed to get the macros typed for about 80% (by propogating the typecasts in sendmessage macros back to the macro declaration, with reasonable (wparam,lparam,lresult) defaults)

The semi automated way has the disadvantage that the order of declarations is different (e.g. first constants, then structures then function declarations), which sometimes makes maintenance a pain. I therefore always keep the original headers/sdk to compare with.

The Jedi winapi conversion project might have more info, they translated about half of the windows headers to Delphi, and thus have enormous experience.

I don't know but if it's for Windows then you might try either a straight C-like API (similar to the WINAPI), or packaging your code as a COM component: because I'd guess that programming languages might want to be able to invoke the Windows API, and/or use COM objects.

Regarding automatic wrapper generation, consider using SWIG. For Java, it will do all the JNI work. Also, it is able to translate complex OO-C++-interfaces properly (provided you follow some basic guidelines, i.e. no nested classes, no over-use of templates, plus the ones mentioned by Marco van de Voort).

Think C, nothing else. C is one of the most popular programming languages. It is widely used on many different software platforms, and there are few computer architectures for which a C compiler does not exist. All popular high-level languages provide an interface to C. That makes your library accessible from almost all platforms in existence. Don't worry too much about providing an Object Oriented interface. Once you have the library done in C, OOP, functional or any other style interface can be created in appropriate client languages. No other systems programming language will give you C's flexibility and potability.

NestedVM I think is going to be slower than pure Java because of the array bounds checking on the int[][] that represents the MIPS virtual machine memory. It is such a good concept but might not perform well enough right now (until phone manufacturers add NestedVM support (if they do!), most stuff is going to be SLOW for now, n'est-ce pas)? Whilst it may be able to unpack JPEGs without error, speed is of no small concern! :)

Nothing else in what you've written sticks out, which isn't to say that it's right or wrong! The principles sound (mainly just listening to choice of words and language to be honest) like roughly standard best practice but I haven't thought through the details of everything you've said. As you said yourself, this really ought to be several questions. But of course doing this kind of thing is not automatically easy just because you're fixed on perhaps a slightly different architecture to the last code base you've worked on...! ;)

My thoughts:

All your comments on C interface compatibility sound sensible to me, pretty much best practice except you don't seem to properly address memory management policy - some sentences a bit ambiguous/vague/wrong-sounding. The design of the memory management will be to a large extent determined by the access patterns made in your application, rather than the functionality per se. I suiggest you study others' attempts at making portable interfaces like the standard ANSI C API, Unix API, Win32 API, Cocoa, J2SE, etc carefully.

If it was me, I'd write the library in a carefully chosen subset of the common elements of regular Java and Davlik virtual machine Java and also write my own custom parser that translates the code to C for platforms that support C, which would of course be most of them. I would suggest that if you restrict yourself to data types of various size ints, bools, Strings, Dictionaries and Arrays and make careful use of them that will help in cross-platform issues without affecting performance much most of the time.

your assumptions seem ok, but i see trouble ahead, much of which you have already spotted in your assumptions. As you said, you can't really export c++ classes and methods, you will need to provide a function based c interface. What ever facade you build around that, it will remain a function based interface at heart.

The basic problem i see with that is that people choose a specific language and its runtime because their way of thinking (functional or object oriented) or the problem they address (web programming, database,...) corresponds to that language in some way or other. A library implemented in c will probably never feel like the libraries they are used to, unless they program in c themselves. Personally, I would always prefer a library that "feels like python" when I use python, and one that feels like java when I do Java EE, even though I know c and c++.

So your effort might be of little actual use (other than your gain in experience), because people will probably want to stick with their mindset, and rather re-implement the functionality than use a library that does the job, but does not fit.

I also fear the desired portability will seriously hamper development. Just think of the infinite build settings needed, and tests for that. I have worked on a project that tried to maintain compatibility for 5 operating systems (all posix-like, but still) and about 10 compilers, the builds were a nightmare to test and maintain.

Give it an XML interface, whether passed as a parameter and return value or as files through a command-line invocation. This may not seem as direct as a normal function interface, but is the most practical way to access an executable from, e.g., Java.

标签
c++
c
portability
易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容，如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈！
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!