[32] How to mix C and C++
(Part of C++ FAQ Lite, Copyright © 1991-2006, Marshall Cline, cline@parashift.com)
FAQs in section [32]:
- [32.1] What do I need to know when mixing C and C++ code?
- [32.2] How can I include a standard C header file in my C++ code?
- [32.3] How can I include a non-system C header file in my C++ code?
- [32.4] How can I modify my own C header files so it's easier to #include them in C++ code?
- [32.5] How can I call a non-system C function f(int,char,float) from my C++ code?
- [32.6] How can I create a C++ function f(int,char,float) that is callable by my C code?
- [32.7] Why is the linker giving errors for C/C++ functions being called from C++/C functions?
- [32.8] How can I pass an object of a C++ class to/from a C function?
- [32.9] Can my C function directly access data in an object of a C++ class?
- [32.10] Why do I feel like I'm "further from the machine" in C++ as opposed to C?
[32.1] What do I need to know when mixing C and C++ code?
Here are some high points (though some compiler-vendors might not require all these; check with your compiler-vendor's documentation):
- You must use your C++ compiler when compiling main() (e.g., for static initialization)
- Your C++ compiler should direct the linking process (e.g., so it can get its special libraries)
- Your C and C++ compilers probably need to come from same vendor and have compatible versions (e.g., so they have the same calling conventions)
In addition, you'll need to read the rest of this section to find out how to make your C functions callable by C++ and/or your C++ functions callable by C.
BTW there is another way to handle this whole thing: compile all your code (even your C-style code) using a C++ compiler. That pretty much eliminates the need to mix C and C++, plus it will cause you to be more careful (and possibly —hopefully!— discover some bugs) in your C-style code. The down-side is that you'll need to update your C-style code in certain ways, basically because the C++ compiler is more careful/picky than your C compiler . The point is that the effort required to clean up your C-style code may be less than the effort required to mix C and C++, and as a bonus you get cleaned up C-style code. Obviously you don't have much of a choice if you're not able to alter your C-style code (e.g., if it's from a third-party).
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.2] How can I include a standard C header file in my C++ code?
To #include a standard header file (such as <cstdio> ), you don't have to do anything unusual. E.g.,
#include <cstdio> // Nothing unusual in #include line
int main()
{
std::printf("Hello world/n"); // Nothing unusual in the call either
...
}
If you think the std:: part of the std::printf() call is unusual, then the best thing to do is "get over it." In other words, it's the standard way to use names in the standard library, so you might as well start getting used to it now.
However if you are compiling C code using your C++ compiler, you don't want to have to tweak all these calls from printf() to std::printf() . Fortunately in this case the C code will use the old-style header <stdio.h> rather than the new-style header <cstdio> , and the magic of namespaces will take care of everything else:
#include <stdio.h> /* Nothing unusual in #include line */
int main()
{
printf("Hello world/n"); /* Nothing unusual in the call either */
...
}
Final comment: if you have C headers that are not part of the standard library, we have somewhat different guidelines for you. There are two cases: either you can't change the header , or you can change the header .
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.3] How can I include a non-system C header file in my C++ code?
If you are including a C header file that isn't provided by the system, you may need to wrap the #include line in an extern "C" { /*... */ } construct. This tells the C++ compiler that the functions declared in the header file are C functions.
extern "C" {
// Get declaration for f(int i, char c, float x)
#include "my-C-code.h"
}
int main()
{
f(7, 'x', 3.14); // Note: nothing unusual in the call
...
}
Note: Somewhat different guidelines apply for C headers provided by the system (such as <cstdio> ) and for C headers that you can change .
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.4] How can I modify my own C header files so it's easier to #include them in C++ code?
If you are including a C header file that isn't provided by the system, and if you are able to change the C header, you should strongly consider adding the extern "C" {... } logic inside the header to make it easier for C++ users to #include it into their C++ code. Since a C compiler won't understand the extern "C" construct, you must wrap the extern "C" { and } lines in an #ifdef so they won't be seen by normal C compilers.
Step #1: Put the following lines at the very top of your C header file (note: the symbol __cplusplus is #define d if/only-if the compiler is a C++ compiler):
extern "C" {
#endif
Step #2: Put the following lines at the very bottom of your C header file:
}
#endif
Now you can #include your C header without any extern "C" nonsense in your C++ code:
// Get declaration for f(int i, char c, float x)
#include "my-C-code.h" // Note: nothing unusual in #include line
int main()
{
f(7, 'x', 3.14); // Note: nothing unusual in the call
...
}
Note: Somewhat different guidelines apply for C headers provided by the system (such as <cstdio> ) and for C headers that you can't change .
Note: #define macros are evil in 4 different ways: evil#1 , evil#2 , evil#3 , and evil#4 . But they're still useful sometimes . Just wash your hands after using them.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.5] How can I call a non-system C function f(int,char,float) from my C++ code?
If you have an individual C function that you want to call, and for some reason you don't have or don't want to #include a C header file in which that function is declared, you can declare the individual C function in your C++ code using the extern "C" syntax. Naturally you need to use the full function prototype:
A block of several C functions can be grouped via braces:
void f(int i, char c, float x);
int g(char* s, const char* s2);
double sqrtOfSumOfSquares(double a, double b);
}
After this you simply call the function just as if it were a C++ function:
{
f(7, 'x', 3.14); // Note: nothing unusual in the call
...
}
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.6] How can I create a C++ function f(int,char,float) that is callable by my C code?
The C++ compiler must know that f(int,char,float) is to be called by a C compiler using the extern "C" construct :
// Declare f(int,char,float) using extern "C" :
extern "C" void f(int i, char c, float x);
...
// Define f(int,char,float) in some C++ module:
void f(int i, char c, float x)
{
...
}
The extern "C" line tells the compiler that the external information sent to the linker should use C calling conventions and name mangling (e.g., preceded by a single underscore). Since name overloading isn't supported by C, you can't make several overloaded functions simultaneously callable by a C program.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.7] Why is the linker giving errors for C/C++ functions being called from C++/C functions?
If you didn't get your extern "C" right, you'll sometimes get linker errors rather than compiler errors. This is due to the fact that C++ compilers usually "mangle" function names (e.g., to support function overloading) differently than C compilers.
See the previous two FAQs on how to use extern "C" .
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.8] How can I pass an object of a C++ class to/from a C function?
Here's an example (for info on extern "C" , see the previous two FAQs).
Fred.h:
#ifndef FRED_H
#define FRED_H
#ifdef __cplusplus
class Fred {
public:
Fred();
void wilma(int);
private:
int a_;
};
#else
typedef
struct Fred
Fred;
#endif
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
#if defined(__STDC__) || defined(__cplusplus)
extern void c_function(Fred*); /* ANSI C prototypes */
extern Fred* cplusplus_callback_function(Fred*);
#else
extern void c_function(); /* K&R style */
extern Fred* cplusplus_callback_function();
#endif
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
#endif /*FRED_H*/
Fred.cpp:
#include "Fred.h"
Fred::Fred() : a_(0) { }
void Fred::wilma(int a) { }
Fred* cplusplus_callback_function(Fred* fred)
{
fred->wilma(123);
return fred;
}
main.cpp:
#include "Fred.h"
int main()
{
Fred fred;
c_function(&fred);
...
}
c-function.c :
#include "Fred.h"
void c_function(Fred* fred)
{
cplusplus_callback_function(fred);
}
Unlike your C++ code, your C code will not be able to tell that two pointers point at the same object unless the pointers are exactly the same type. For example, in C++ it is easy to check if a Derived* called dp points to the same object as is pointed to by a Base* called bp: just say if (dp == bp) ... . The C++ compiler automatically converts both pointers to the same type, in this case to Base* , then compares them. Depending on the C++ compiler's implementation details, this conversion sometimes changes the bits of a pointer's value. However your C compiler will not know how to do that pointer conversion, so the conversion from Derived* to Base* , for example, must take place in code compiled with a C++ compiler, not in code compiled with a C compiler.
NOTE: you must be especially careful when converting both to void* since that conversion will not allow either the C or C++ compiler to do the proper pointer adjustments! For example (continuing from the previous paragraph), if you assigned dp and bp into two void* pointers, say dpv and bpv, it might be the case that dpv != bpv even if dp == bp . You have been warned.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.9] Can my C function directly access data in an object of a C++ class?
Sometimes.
(For basic info on passing C++ objects to/from C functions, read the previous FAQ).
You can safely access a C++ object's data from a C function if the C++ class:
- Has no virtual functions (including inherited virtual functions)
- Has all its data in the same access-level section (private/protected/public)
- Has no fully-contained subobjects with virtual functions
If the C++ class has any base classes at all (or if any fully contained subobjects have base classes), accessing the data will technically be non-portable, since class layout under inheritance isn't imposed by the language. However in practice, all C++ compilers do it the same way: the base class object appears first (in left-to-right order in the event of multiple inheritance), and member objects follow.
Furthermore, if the class (or any base class) contains any virtual functions, almost all C++ compliers put a void* into the object either at the location of the first virtual function or at the very beginning of the object. Again, this is not required by the language, but it is the way "everyone" does it.
If the class has any virtual base classes, it is even more complicated and less portable. One common implementation technique is for objects to contain an object of the virtual base class (V) last (regardless of where V shows up as a virtual base class in the inheritance hierarchy). The rest of the object's parts appear in the normal order. Every derived class that has V as a virtual base class actually has a pointer to the V part of the final object.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
[32.10] Why do I feel like I'm "further from the machine" in C++ as opposed to C?
Because you are.
As an OO programming language, C++ allows you to model the problem domain itself, which allows you to program in the language of the problem domain rather than in the language of the solution domain.
One of C's great strengths is the fact that it has "no hidden mechanism": what you see is what you get. You can read a C program and "see" every clock cycle. This is not the case in C++; old line C programmers (such as many of us once were) are often ambivalent (can you say, "hostile"?) about this feature. However after they've made the transition to OO thinking, they often realize that although C++ hides some mechanism from the programmer, it also provides a level of abstraction and economy of expression which lowers maintenance costs without destroying run-time performance.
Naturally you can write bad code in any language; C++ doesn't guarantee any particular level of quality, reusability, abstraction, or any other measure of "goodness."
C++ doesn't try to make it impossible for bad programmers to write bad programs; it enables reasonable developers to create superior software.
扫一扫
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
