How do I pass a UTF-16 char from a C++/CLI function to a .NET function? What types do I use on the C++/CLI side and how do I convert it?
I've currently defined the C++/CLI function as follows:
wchar_t GetCurrentTrackID(); // 'wchar_t' is the C++ unicode char equivalent to .NET's 'char'?
The .NET wrapper is defined as:
System::Char GetCurrentTrackID(); // here, 'char' means UTF-16 char
I'm currently using this to convert it, but when testing it I only get a null character. How do I properly convert a unicode char code to its char equivalent for .NET?
#pragma managed
return (System::Char)player->GetCurrentTrackID();
They are directly compatible. You can assign a Char to a wchar_t and the other way around without a cast, the compiler will not emit any kind of conversion function call. This is true for many simple value types in C++/CLI, like Boolean vs bool, SByte vs char, Byte vs unsigned char, Int16 vs short, Int32 vs int or long, Int64 vs long long, Single vs float, Double vs double. Plus their unsigned varieties. The compiler will treat them as aliases since they have the exact same binary representation.
But not strings or arrays, they are classes with a non-trivial implementation that doesn't match their native versions at all.
Related
I am trying to rewrite old code written in C++ to C# - code does binary manipulation with chars, but I recieve different results (probably I do some bad manipulation because of Unicode in C#).
I need to rewrite this C++ code to C#:
myChar = 'K' ^ 128;
Result of this code in C++ is -53 ('Ë') in C++'s data type char.
Same operation in C# results in 203 (again 'Ë') in C#'s data type char.
So char is ok, but I need same byte value as in C++ (because I do math operation with that). Can you recommend way, how to safe convert C# char to equivalent C++ byte values?
Thanks
In a single byte two's complement representation 203 is an unsigned interpretation of of -53.
If you would like to use an equivalent representation of C++ signed char, the type should be sbyte:
sbyte myChar = (sbyte)('K' ^ 128);
Note that C++ standard leaves it up to the implementation to decide whether a char is signed or unsigned, which means that some standard-compliant C++ will print 203 for myChar, not -58, without any change to your code.
I have a struct in c++:
struct some_struct{
uchar* data;
size_t size;
}
I want to pass it between manged(c#) and native(c++). What is the equivalent of size_t in C# ?
P.S. I need an exact match in the size because any byte difference will results in huge problem while wrapping
EDIT:
Both native and manged code are under my full control ( I can edit whatever I want)
There is no C# equivalent to size_t.
The C# sizeof() operator always returns an int value regardless of platform, so technically the C# equivalent of size_t is int, but that's no help to you.
(Note that Marshal.SizeOf() also returns an int.)
Also note that no C# object can be larger than 2GB in size as far as sizeof() and Marshal.Sizeof() is concerned. Arrays can be larger than 2GB, but you cannot use sizeof() or Marshal.SizeOf() with arrays.
For your purposes, you will need to know what the version of code in the DLL uses for size_t and use the appropriate size integral type in C#.
One important thing to realise is that in C/C++ size_t will generally have the same number of bits as intptr_t but this is NOT guaranteed, especially for segmented architectures.
I know lots of people say "use UIntPtr", and that will normally work, but it's not GUARANTEED to be correct.
From the C/C++ definition of size_t, size_t
is the unsigned integer type of the result of the sizeof operator;
The best equivalent for size_t in C# is the UIntPtr type. It's 32-bit on 32-bit platforms, 64-bit on 64-bit platforms, and unsigned.
You better to use nint/nuint which is wrapper around IntPtr/UIntPtr
The title contains all. How do I pass a char and char* from C# to C++/CLI.
Here is my cpp function declaration:
int ForexCpp::FXCrossDate(
char usdTypeOfPeriods,
char *holidayFile,
TDate% result); /* (O) Resulting FX cross date */
In C#, char and char * are exposed as sByte and sByte*...
Since you have chosen to use C++/CLI rather than P/invoke the natural way to handle this is to pass a .net string rather than a char*.
Have you done any research on this yet? The internet is full of this type of stuff.
Anyways, this page on MSDN lists various ways to convert between string types:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235631.aspx
The one you want is at the bottom of the page.
Native method from dll works in java if the input parameter is array of bytes - byte[].
If we use the same method from c# it throws EntryPointNotFoundException.
Is that because of byte[] in java and c# are different things? and if it's so how should I use native function from c#?
Java lacks the unsigned types. In particular, Java lacks a primitive type for an unsigned byte. The Java byte type is signed, while the C# byte is unsigned and sbyte is signed.
Is that because of byte[] in java and c# are different things?
Yes.
Endianness: Java stores things internally as Big Endian, while .NET is Little Endian by default.
Signedness: C# bytes are unsigned. Java bytes are signed.
See different results when converting int to byte array - .NET vs Java.
What's the signature of the native function? How do you declare it in Java and in C#?
The most common reason for EntryPointNotFoundException is that function name is mangled (esp. true if function is written in C++) or misspelled.
Another source of problem is 'W' and 'A' suffixes for WinAPI function used to distinguish ANSI and Unicode versions of functions. .NET interop mechanism can try to guess the function suffix, so that may be the source of confusion,
Java Byte:
java byte: The byte data type is an 8-bit signed two's complement integer. It has a minimum value of -128 and a maximum value of 127 (inclusive). The byte data type can be useful for saving memory in large arrays, where the memory savings actually matters. They can also be used in place of int where their limits help to clarify your code; the fact that a variable's range is limited can serve as a form of documentation.
more for Java Byte
C# Byte
Byte Represents an 8-bit unsigned integer,Byte is an immutable value type that represents unsigned integers with values that range from 0 (which is represented by the Byte.MinValue constant) to 255 (which is represented by the Byte.MaxValue constant). The .NET Framework also includes a signed 8-bit integer value type, SByte, which represents values that range from -128 to 127.
more for c# Byte
In my C# source code I may have declared integers as:
int i = 5;
or
Int32 i = 5;
In the currently prevalent 32-bit world they are equivalent. However, as we move into a 64-bit world, am I correct in saying that the following will become the same?
int i = 5;
Int64 i = 5;
No. The C# specification rigidly defines that int is an alias for System.Int32 with exactly 32 bits. Changing this would be a major breaking change.
The int keyword in C# is defined as an alias for the System.Int32 type and this is (judging by the name) meant to be a 32-bit integer. To the specification:
CLI specification section 8.2.2 (Built-in value and reference types) has a table with the following:
System.Int32 - Signed 32-bit integer
C# specification section 8.2.1 (Predefined types) has a similar table:
int - 32-bit signed integral type
This guarantees that both System.Int32 in CLR and int in C# will always be 32-bit.
Will sizeof(testInt) ever be 8?
No, sizeof(testInt) is an error. testInt is a local variable. The sizeof operator requires a type as its argument. This will never be 8 because it will always be an error.
VS2010 compiles a c# managed integer as 4 bytes, even on a 64 bit machine.
Correct. I note that section 18.5.8 of the C# specification defines sizeof(int) as being the compile-time constant 4. That is, when you say sizeof(int) the compiler simply replaces that with 4; it is just as if you'd said "4" in the source code.
Does anyone know if/when the time will come that a standard "int" in C# will be 64 bits?
Never. Section 4.1.4 of the C# specification states that "int" is a synonym for "System.Int32".
If what you want is a "pointer-sized integer" then use IntPtr. An IntPtr changes its size on different architectures.
int is always synonymous with Int32 on all platforms.
It's very unlikely that Microsoft will change that in the future, as it would break lots of existing code that assumes int is 32-bits.
I think what you may be confused by is that int is an alias for Int32 so it will always be 4 bytes, but IntPtr is suppose to match the word size of the CPU architecture so it will be 4 bytes on a 32-bit system and 8 bytes on a 64-bit system.
According to the C# specification ECMA-334, section "11.1.4 Simple Types", the reserved word int will be aliased to System.Int32. Since this is in the specification it is very unlikely to change.
No matter whether you're using the 32-bit version or 64-bit version of the CLR, in C# an int will always mean System.Int32 and long will always mean System.Int64.
The following will always be true in C#:
sbyte signed 8 bits, 1 byte
byte unsigned 8 bits, 1 byte
short signed 16 bits, 2 bytes
ushort unsigned 16 bits, 2 bytes
int signed 32 bits, 4 bytes
uint unsigned 32 bits, 4 bytes
long signed 64 bits, 8 bytes
ulong unsigned 64 bits, 8 bytes
An integer literal is just a sequence of digits (eg 314159) without any of these explicit types. C# assigns it the first type in the sequence (int, uint, long, ulong) in which it fits. This seems to have been slightly muddled in at least one of the responses above.
Weirdly the unary minus operator (minus sign) showing up before a string of digits does not reduce the choice to (int, long). The literal is always positive; the minus sign really is an operator. So presumably -314159 is exactly the same thing as -((int)314159). Except apparently there's a special case to get -2147483648 straight into an int; otherwise it'd be -((uint)2147483648). Which I presume does something unpleasant.
Somehow it seems safe to predict that C# (and friends) will never bother with "squishy name" types for >=128 bit integers. We'll get nice support for arbitrarily large integers and super-precise support for UInt128, UInt256, etc. as soon as processors support doing math that wide, and hardly ever use any of it. 64-bit address spaces are really big. If they're ever too small it'll be for some esoteric reason like ASLR or a more efficient MapReduce or something.
Yes, as Jon said, and unlike the 'C/C++ world', Java and C# aren't dependent on the system they're running on. They have strictly defined lengths for byte/short/int/long and single/double precision floats, equal on every system.
int without suffix can be either 32bit or 64bit, it depends on the value it represents.
as defined in MSDN:
When an integer literal has no suffix, its type is the first of these types in which its value can be represented: int, uint, long, ulong.
Here is the address:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5kzh1b5w.aspx