Menu
I read through the following two threads on wrapping C library and C++ library, I am not sure I get it yet. The C++ library I am working with does use class and template, but not in any over-sophisticated way. What are issues or caveats of wrapping it with ctypes (besides the point that you can do so in pure python etc)?
PyCXX , Cython and boost::python are three other choices people mentioned, is there any consensus which one is more suitable for C++?
Thanks
Oliver
565
ctypes is the de facto standard library for interfacing with C/C++ from CPython, and it provides not only full access to the native C interface of most major operating systems (e.g., kernel32 on Windows, or libc on *nix), but also provides support for loading and interfacing with dynamic libraries, such as DLLs or ...
ctypes is a foreign function library for Python. It provides C compatible data types, and allows calling functions in DLLs or shared libraries. It can be used to wrap these libraries in pure Python.
To wrap this manually, we need to do the following. First, write a Python-callable function that takes in a string and returns a string. Second, register this function within a module's symbol table (all Python functions live in a module, even if they're actually C functions!)
c_char_p is a subclass of _SimpleCData , with _type_ == 'z' . The __init__ method calls the type's setfunc , which for simple type 'z' is z_set . In Python 2, the z_set function (2.7.
In defence of boost::python, given Alexander's answer on ctypes:
Boost python provides a very "c++" interface between c++ and python code - even doing things like allowed python subclasses of c++ classes to override virtual methods is relatively straightforward. Here's a potted list of good features:
std::vector<>, std::map<> instances and python lists and dictionaries (using vector_indexing_suite and map_indexing_suite)boost::shared_ptr, etc) with python reference counts (and you can extend this to any smart pointer).Basically, if you have a design where you want to expose a c++ interface in a way faithful to the language, then boost::python is probably the best way to do it.
The only downsides are increased compile time (boost::python makes extensive use of templates), and sometimes opaque error messages if you don't get things quite right.
114
For C++ a library to be accessible from Python it must use C export names, which basically means that a function named foo will be accessible from ctypes as foo.
This can be achieved only by enclosing the public interface with export C {}, which in turn disallows function overloading and templates therein (only the public interface of the library to be wrapped is relevant, the inner workings are not and may use any C++ features they like).
Reason for this is that C++ compilers use a mechanism called name mangling to generate unique names for overloaded or templated symbols. While ctypes would still find a function provided you knew its mangled name, the mangling scheme depends on the compiler/linker being used and is nothing you can rely on. In short: do not use ctypes to wrap libraries that use C++ features in their public interface.
Cython takes a different approach. It aids you at building a C extension module that does the interfacing with the original library. Therefore, linking to the C++ library is done by the regular C++ linkage mechanism, thus avoiding the aforementioned problem. The trouble with Cython is that C extension libraries need to to be recompiled for every platform, but anyway, this applies to the C++ library to be wrapped as well.
Personally, I'd say that in most cases the time to fire up Cython is a time that is well-spent and will eventually pay off in comparison to ctypes (with an exception for really simple Cish interfaces).
I don't have any experience with boost.python, so I can't comment on it (however, I don't have the impression that it is very popular either).
25
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
