None of the examples I have seen thus far appear to address the problem of marshaling a structure containing a union of structures that contain recursive references. I am attempting to write a marshaler for a structure which contains these and have so far failed.
For example:
typedef enum {
My_StructA = 0x7878,
My_StructB
} MyStructTag;
typedef struct _MyStruct MyStruct;
struct _MyStruct {
MyStructTag discriminator;
union {
struct {
int a;
int b;
} StructA;
struct {
int c;
MyStruct* d;
} StructB;
} MyUnion;
};
I attempted to define the structures as follows:
type MyStructTag =
| My_StructA = 0x7878
| My_StructB = 0x7879
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)>]
type StructA =
val mutable a : int
val mutable b : int
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)>]
type StructB =
val mutable c : int
val mutable d : MyStruct
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit)>]
type MyStruct =
[<FieldOffset(0)>] val discriminator : MyStructTag
[<FieldOffset(4)>] val structA : StructA
[<FieldOffset(4)>] val structB : StructB
Note that the reason I bothered to define MyStruct explicitly is to allow myself to make use of Marshal.OffsetOf() and Marshal.SizeOf() when writing the custom marshaler for this structure. From what I have seen, writing a custom marshaler is the only way to handle unions. If I am wrong about that, references would be greatly appreciated!
The error I receive when writing the above code is:
error FS0039: The type 'MyStruct' is not defined
I assume this is because only discriminated union types can be defined recursively. However, I am not aware of any other way to represent these structures in F#.
Thank you in advance for your time.
You've got two problems. First of all, any mutually recursive types (whether discriminated unions, classes, or structs) need to be defined using
type A = ...
and B = ...
rather than
type A = ...
type B = ...
(and note that attributes can come before or after the word type, but only after the word and...). However, if you try this, you'll see that you just get a different error, because structs can't be directly recursive as fields of each other. If struct A had a field which was a struct B and struct B had a field which was a struct A (and either of them had any other fields), then the size would be infinite. Note that this is true of your C code as well - StructB contains a pointer to a MyStruct, not a MyStruct itself. In .NET, you can use an IntPtr for this - in F# you can use the nativeint alias or nativeptr<MyStruct>. Try this:
open System.Runtime.InteropServices
type MyStructTag =
| My_StructA = 0x7878
| My_StructB = 0x7879
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)>]
type StructA =
val mutable a : int
val mutable b : int
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)>]
type StructB =
val mutable c : int
val mutable d : nativeptr<MyStruct>
and [<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit)>]MyStruct =
[<FieldOffset(0)>] val discriminator : MyStructTag
[<FieldOffset(4)>] val structA : StructA
[<FieldOffset(4)>] val structB : StructB
Related
I'm pretty sure this isn't possible but thought I'd double check. I guess I'm trying to mimic typescript's union types.
I have a type
type StringOrInt =
| String of string
| Int of int
And then a function
let returnSelf (x: StringOrInt) = x
At the moment the function has to be called like
returnSelf (String "hello")
Is it possible to do
returnSelf "hello"
and infer that it is a valid StringOrInt?
At the moment it's not supported out of the box, but fairly simple generic casting method can be implemented.
Given an example function:
let call v = (* v has inferred type StringOrInt *)
match v with
| String s -> printfn "called a string %s" s
| Int i -> printfn "called an int %i" i
We could eventually call it like so:
(* % is a unary prefix operator *)
call %"abc"
call %1
We need to provide some way to tell how to convert ordinary string/int into StringOrInt type. This can be used by exemplar convention call:
type StringOrInt =
| String of string
| Int of int
static member inline From(i: int) = Int i
static member inline From(s: string) = String s
Here our discriminated union provides two static methods which are responsible for casting. Since they correspond to the same naming convention, we can use them together with F# statically resolved generic type parameters - these are generics that are resolved at compile time unlike the .NET generics which exists also at runtime - to create a casting function (or operator):
(* casting operator *)
let inline (~%) (x: ^A) : ^B =
(^B : (static member From: ^A -> ^B) x)
This way you can use % prefix operator over any type that implements a casting mechanism in form of static From method.
I would like to extend F# Arrays such that I can use arrays without converting to the finite int. Instead I want to work with bigint directly.
I was able to add a second length method to the array type as follows:
type 'T ``[]`` with
member this.LengthI: bigint =
bigint this.Length
member this.Item(index: bigint): 'T =
this.[int index]
However the Item method cannot be called with the .[ ] syntax.
Any ideas how this could be achieved? I this possible at all?
I strongly suspect this isn't possible for native arrays. You can verify yourself that you can overload indexed access just fine for other collections.
If you compile the following code:
let myArray = [| "a" |]
let myList = [ "a" ]
let arrayElement = myArray.[11111]
let listElement = myList.[22222]
and inspect the resulting IL, you'll see that while accessing the list element compiles to a regular virtual call, there is a special CIL instruction for accessing a native array element, ldelem.
//000004: let arrayElement = myArray.[11111]
IL_002c: call string[] Fuduoqv1565::get_myArray()
IL_0031: ldc.i4 0x2b67
IL_0036: ldelem [mscorlib]System.String
IL_003b: stsfld string '<StartupCode$51dff40d-e00b-40e4-b9cc-15309089d437>'.$Fuduoqv1565::arrayElement#4
.line 5,5 : 1,33 ''
//000005: let listElement = myList.[22222]
IL_0040: call class [FSharp.Core]Microsoft.FSharp.Collections.FSharpList`1<string> Fuduoqv1565::get_myList()
IL_0045: ldc.i4 0x56ce
IL_004a: callvirt instance !0 class [FSharp.Core]Microsoft.FSharp.Collections.FSharpList`1<string>::get_Item(int32)
IL_004f: stsfld string '<StartupCode$51dff40d-e00b-40e4-b9cc-15309089d437>'.$Fuduoqv1565::listElement#5
IL_0054: ret
I would guess that the same compiler logic that special-case array access to that single instruction also bypass any overload resolution involving extension methods and the like.
One way to circumvent this is to wrap the array in a custom type, where overloaded indexers will work as you expect. Making the wrapper type a struct should reduce the performance loss in most cases:
type [<Struct>] BigArray<'T>(array : 'T[]) =
member this.LengthI: bigint =
bigint array.Length
member this.Item
with get(index : int) = array.[index]
and set (index : int) value = array.[index] <- value
member this.Item
with get(index : bigint) = array.[int index]
and set (index : bigint) value = array.[int index] <- value
let bigArray = BigArray myArray
let bigArrayElement = bigArray.[0]
let bigArrayElement2 = bigArray.[bigint 0]
Another one is to upcast the array to the base System.Array class, on which you can then define the same overloaded operator. This removes the need to create a wrapper type and duplicate all members of 'T[], as you can just upcast/downcast the same array object as necessary. However, since the base class is untyped, you will lose type safety and have to box/unbox the elements when using the indexed access, which is quite ugly:
type System.Array with
member this.Item
with get (index : int) = (this :?> 'T[]).[index]
and set (index : int) (value : 'T) = (this :?> 'T[]).[index] <- value
member this.Item
with get(index : bigint) : 'T = (this :?> 'T[]).[int index]
and set(index : bigint) (value : 'T) = (this :?> 'T[]).[int index] <- value
let untypedArray = myArray :> System.Array
let untypedArrayElement = box untypedArray.[0] :?> string
let untypedArrayElement2 = box untypedArray.[bigint 0] :?> string
I have a native C library and I want do some F# coding with it. The thing is I get exception:
System.TypeLoadException: Cannot marshal field 'log' of type
'LoggingModel': There is no marshaling support for this type.
at
System.StubHelpers.ValueClassMarshaler.ConvertToNative(IntPtr dst,
IntPtr src, IntPtr pMT, CleanupWorkList& pCleanupWorkList)
at
FSI_0009.Initialize(ComponentOverrideFlags flags, LoggingModel&
loggingModel, ThreadingModel& threadingModel, SchedulingModel&
schedulingModel, IntPtr memoryModel)
at
.$FSI_0011.main#()
in
D:\dev_p\f#\FunBindings\FunExample\Environment.fs:line 16 Stopped due
to error
Here the code:
module Interop
[<CLSCompliant(true); Flags>]
type LogTarget =
| None = 0
| Console = 1
| Trace = 2
| Custom = 4
[<UnmanagedFunctionPointer(CallingConvention.Cdecl)>]
type LogCallback = delegate of LogTarget * string * string * nativeint -> unit
[<UnmanagedFunctionPointer(CallingConvention.Cdecl)>]
type ReleaseCallback = delegate of nativeint -> unit
[<Struct>]
type LoggingModel =
val mutable targets : LogTarget
val mutable log : LogCallback
val mutable deleteModel : ReleaseCallback
val mutable userparam : IntPtr
[<DllImport("CLIBRARY.dll", CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Cdecl, EntryPoint = "txInitialize")>]
[<MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.ForwardRef)>]
extern int Initialize(ComponentOverrideFlags flags, LoggingModel& loggingModel, ThreadingModel& threadingModel, SchedulingModel& schedulingModel, IntPtr memoryModel)
module Environment
let initialize =
let mutable loggingModel = new LoggingModel()
let mutable threadingModel = new ThreadingModel()
let mutable schedulingModel = new SchedulingModel()
Initialize(ComponentOverrideFlags.None, &loggingModel, &threadingModel, &schedulingModel, IntPtr.Zero)
Basically, I get the aforementioned error when I try to execute "initialize" function in interactive.
I would really appreciate any help.
Update: I've checked the code a bit more and noticed that outside of the interactive console it seems to be working, without failing with exceptions. I need to provide a bit more coverage for CLibrary to be sure. Meanwhile, if there anybody who knows what could cause this exception and how it could be prevented, I would really appreciate the answer.
I think the problem is that delegate of LogTarget * string * string * nativeint -> unit declares a delegate where the arguments are curried. (This doesn't really make sense to me either since a * b normally represents a tuple.)
The subtly different delegate of (LogTarget * string * string * nativeint) -> unit declares a delegate with tupled arguments which would be compatible with a native function.
You can see this difference if you try and assign a .NET method to two different delegate types:
type Curried = delegate of int * int -> int
type Tupled = delegate of (int * int) -> int
//let a = new Curried (Math.Max) // doesn't compile
let b = new Tupled (Math.Max) // works
Have you tried adding [<MarshalAsAttribute(UnmanagedType.FunctionPtr)>] to LoggingModel?
[<Struct>]
type LoggingModel =
val mutable targets : LogTarget
[<MarshalAsAttribute(UnmanagedType.FunctionPtr)>]
val mutable log : LogCallback
[<MarshalAsAttribute(UnmanagedType.FunctionPtr)>]
val mutable deleteModel : ReleaseCallback
val mutable userparam : IntPtr
IL code without this attribute is:
// Fields
.field public class Interop.LogCallback log
but with this attribute is:
// Fields
.field public marshal(Func) class Interop.LogCallback log
Without marshal(Func)/MarshalAs attribute the delegate cannot be marshalled even with the UnmanagedFunctionPointer attribute. Cannot test it with a native library though.
I want to create a cacheline sized struct wrapping a mutable, volatile int64 in F#. I’ve tried various struct definitions including the one below, but can't get anything to compile.
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size = 64)>]
type MyStruct1 (initVal:int64) =
[<VolatileField>]
let mutable value = initVal
member x.Value
with get () = value
and set(valIn) = value <- valIn
which gives this error: "Structs cannot contain value definitions because the default constructor for structs will not execute these bindings.
consider adding additional arguments to the primary constructor for the type". I can't see what additional arguements I could add to the primary constructor above.
Any ideas?
The struct definition could be
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size = 64)>]
type MyStruct =
[<FieldOffset(0)>]
val mutable value : int64
new(initVal:int64) = { value = initVal }
member x.Value
with get() = x.value
and set(valIn) = x.value <- valIn
but then, [<VolatileField>] is not allowed on val bindings and structs can't contain let bindings.
TL;DR: AFAIK this is impossible in F#
As pointed out by #V.B. you could use Interlocked which gives a superset of volatiles guarantees (stronger guarantees ≈ more overhead). It might then be better to privateize value to prevent (accidental) writes circumventing the barrier:
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size = 64)>]
type MyStruct =
[<FieldOffset(0)>]
val mutable private value : int64
new(initVal:int64) = { value = initVal }
member public x.Value
with get() = Interlocked.Read(&x.value)
and set(valIn) = Interlocked.Exchange(&x.value, valIn) |> ignore
Interlocked gives similar guarantees as volatile, see this question.
open System.Threading
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size = 64)>]
type MyStruct =
[<FieldOffset(0)>]
val mutable value : int64
new(initVal:int64) = { value = initVal }
member x.Value
with get() = Interlocked.Read(&(x.value))
and set(valIn) = Interlocked.Exchange(&(x.value),valIn) |> ignore
Here is what am I trying to do :
and [<AbstractClass>] Figure() =
let mutable name : string = ""
let mutable color : ColorType = WHITE
abstract member Name : string
member F.Color
with get() = color
and set v = color <- v
abstract member motion : Dashboard -> SPosition -> ColorType -> list<SPosition * CellDashboard * bool>;
override F.ToString() = name
and CellDashboard(addingFigure : Nullable<Figure>) as C =
let mutable attacked : bool = false;
let mutable cleaned : bool = false;
let mutable _CellState : Nullable<Figure> = Nullable<Figure>(addingFigure);
the trouble is :
Error 1 A generic construct requires that the type 'Figure' be non-abstract
why ? And how can I avoid this error ?
The Nullable<T> type can only be used for .NET value types. The error message essentially means that the compiler cannot check whether the constraint holds or not (because the type is abstract).
If you want to represent missing value in F#, it is better to use option<T> instead.
If you're writing code that will be used from C#, then it is better to avoid exposing F#-specific types (like option<T>) and you can mark the type with AllowNullLiteral, which makes it possible to pass null as a value of the type (but null is evil, so this shouldn't be done unless necessary!)