Using C++ DLLs with different compiler versions

Question

This question is related to "How to make consistent dll binaries across VS versions ?"

• We have applications and DLLs built with VC6 and a new application built with VC9. The VC9-app has to use DLLs compiled with VC6, most of which are written in C and one in C++.
• The C++ lib is problematic due to name decoration/mangling issues.
• Compiling everything with VC9 is currently not an option as there appear to be some side effects. Resolving these would be quite time consuming.
• I can modify the C++ library, however it must be compiled with VC6.
• The C++ lib is essentially an OO-wrapper for another C library. The VC9-app uses some static functions as well as some non-static.

While the static functions can be handled with something like

// Header file
class DLL_API Foo
{
    int init();
}

extern "C"
{
    int DLL_API Foo_init();
}

// Implementation file
int Foo_init()
{
    return Foo::init();
}

it's not that easy with the non-static methods.

As I understand it, Chris Becke's suggestion of using a COM-like interface won't help me because the interface member names will still be decorated and thus inaccessible from a binary created with a different compiler. Am I right there?

Would the only solution be to write a C-style DLL interface using handlers to the objects or am I missing something? In that case, I guess, I would probably have less effort with directly using the wrapped C-library.

Marcellemarcellina

Answer 1

Interface member names will not be decorated -- they're just offsets in a vtable. You can define an interface (using a C struct, rather than a COM "interface") in a header file, thusly:

struct IFoo {
    int Init() = 0;
};

Then, you can export a function from the DLL, with no mangling:

class CFoo : public IFoo { /* ... */ };
extern "C" IFoo * __stdcall GetFoo() { return new CFoo(); }

This will work fine, provided that you're using a compiler that generates compatible vtables. Microsoft C++ has generated the same format vtable since (at least, I think) MSVC6.1 for DOS, where the vtable is a simple list of pointers to functions (with thunking in the multiple-inheritance case). GNU C++ (if I recall correctly) generates vtables with function pointers and relative offsets. These are not compatible with each other.

Pasteurism

Answer 2

The biggest problem to consider when using a DLL compiled with a different C++ compiler than the calling EXE is memory allocation and object lifetime.

I'm assuming that you can get past the name mangling (and calling convention), which isn't difficult if you use a compiler with compatible mangling (I think VC6 is broadly compatible with VS2008), or if you use extern "C".

Where you'll run into problems is when you allocate something using new (or malloc) from the DLL, and then you return this to the caller. The caller's delete (or free) will attempt to free the object from a different heap. This will go horribly wrong.

You can either do a COM-style IFoo::Release thing, or a MyDllFree() thing. Both of these, because they call back into the DLL, will use the correct implementation of delete (or free()), so they'll delete the correct object.

Or, you can make sure that you use LocalAlloc (for example), so that the EXE and the DLL are using the same heap.

Pasteurism

Problems with dynamic memory allocations in different heaps are a huge issue that many people don't get. – Lizliza

you can also use smart pointers to handle the object deallocation. – Shiv

...as long as your smart pointer calls back to the DLL to do the deallocation. Wrapping it in a smart pointer will, by default, just call the EXE's delete, not the one in the DLL. – Pasteurism

Answer 3

Well, I think Chris Becke's suggestion is just fine. I would not use Roger's first solution, which uses an interface in name only and, as he mentions, can run into problems of incompatible compiler-handling of abstract classes and virtual methods. Roger points to the attractive COM-consistent case in his follow-on.

1. The pain point: You need to learn to make COM interface requests and deal properly with IUnknown, relying on at least IUnknown:AddRef and IUnknown:Release. If the implementations of interfaces can support more than one interface or if methods can also return interfaces, you may also need to become comfortable with IUnknown:QueryInterface.

2. Here's the key idea. All of the programs that use the implementation of the interface (but don't implement it) use a common #include "*.h" file that defines the interface as a struct (C) or a C/C++ class (VC++) or struct (non VC++ but C++). The *.h file automatically adapts appropriately depending on whether you are compiling a C Language program or a C++ language program. You don't have to know about that part simply to use the *.h file. What the *.h file does is define the Interface struct or type, lets say, IFoo, with its virtual member functions (and only functions, no direct visibility to data members in this approach).

3. The header file is constructed to honor the COM binary standard in a way that works for C and that works for C++ regardless of the C++ compiler that is used. (The Java JNI folk figured this one out.) This means that it works between separately-compiled modules of any origin so long as a struct consisting entirely of function-entry pointers (a vtable) is mapped to memory the same by all of them (so they have to be all x86 32-bit, or all x64, for example).

4. In the DLL that implements the the COM interface via a wrapper class of some sort, you only need a factory entry point. Something like an

   extern "C" HRESULT MkIFooImplementation(void **ppv);

which returns an HRESULT (you'll need to learn about those too) and will also return a *pv in a location you provide for receiving the IFoo interface pointer. (I am skimming and there are more careful details that you'll need here. Don't trust my syntax) The actual function stereotype that you use for this is also declared in the *.h file.

4. The point is that the factory entry, which is always an undecorated extern "C" does all of the necessary wrapper class creation and then delivers an Ifoo interface pointer to the location that you specify. This means that all memory management for creation of the class, and all memory management for finalizing it, etc., will happen in the DLL where you build the wrapper. This is the only place where you have to deal with those details.

5. When you get an OK result from the factory function, you have been issued an interface pointer and it has already been reserved for you (there is an implicit IFoo:Addref operation already performed on behalf of the interface pointer you were delivered).

6. When you are done with the interface, you release it with a call on the IFoo:Release method of the interface. It is the final release implementation (in case you made more AddRef'd copies) that will tear down the class and its interface support in the factory DLL. This is what gets you correct reliance on a consistent dynamic stoorage allocation and release behind the interface, whether or not the DLL containing the factory function uses the same libraries as the calling code.

7. You should probably implement IUnknown:QueryInterface (as method IFoo:QueryInterface) too, even if it always fails. If you want to be more sophisticated with using the COM binary interface model as you have more experience, you can learn to provide full QueryInterface implementations.

This is probably too much information, but I wanted to point out that a lot of the problems you are facing about heterogeneous implementations of DLLs are resolved in the definition of the COM binary interface and even if you don't need all of it, the fact that it provides worked solutions is valuable. In my experience, once you get the hang of this, you will never forget how powerful this can be in C++ and C++ interop situations.

I haven't sketched the resources you might need to consult for examples and what you have to learn in order to make *.h files and to actually implement factory-function wrappers of the libraries you want to share. If you want to dig deeper, holler.

Sciatic

Answer 4

There are other things you need to consider too, such as which run-times are being used by the various libraries. If no objects are being shared that's fine, but that seems quite unlikely at first glance.
Chris Becker's suggestions are pretty accurate - using an actual COM interface may help you get the binary compatibility you need. Your mileage may vary :)

Fredrika

Answer 5

not fun, man. you are in for a lot of frustration, you should probably give this:

Would the only solution be to write a C-style DLL interface using handlers to the objects or am I missing something? In that case, I guess, I would probably have less effort with directly using the wrapped C-library.

a really close look. good luck.

Avoid