same function, two different parameter sets for external dll?

We have a dll written in C++ that is used in several external applications.  The external functions work fine, but there is a serious compatibility issue and I'm trying to figure out a way around it.  Here's the current situation (please ignore pseudo-syntax because it's not the issue here):

dllinterface.h:
Version A:
extern myFunction (parameter1, parameter2, parameter3)

Version B:
extern myFunction (parameter2, parameter2, parameter2a, parameter3)

Parameters 1, 2, and 3 are identical, but Version B has an extra parameter stuck in the middle.  Is there any way I can come up with a Version C that supports both versions of myFunction?  In other words, can I have two function definitions for the same function, and depending on how many parameters there are, decide which definition I should use???  Changing the names of one of the functions is not an option.  Right now we're just supporting both versions of the dll but that is becoming next to impossible due to the number of applications that are using this dll.


rhaakAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
jkrConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Unfortunately, you cannot. Each exported functin is a DLL needs an unique name (that's where C++ name decoration kicks in) But, if you can live with decorated export names, why not using 'myFunction1' and/or 'myFunction2'?
0
 
AlexFMConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Such problem can be solved using overloaded functions.

void myFunction (parameter1, parameter2, parameter3);

Now you need to write Dll with new version which contains 4 parameters:

void myFunction (parameter1, parameter2, parameter3)
{
    MyFunction(parameter1, parameter2, default value of parameter2a, parameter3);
}

void myFunction (parameter1, parameter2, parameter2a, parameter3)
{
    // implementation
}

In new Dll version, actual implementation is moved to new version of function. Library still supports old function, and allows to call new function.
0
 
rhaakAuthor Commented:
Excellent!!!  I really didn't think there was an easy way around this.  Should the .h file contain both function definitions?  We have two .h files that specify the function definition, the first specifically for this dll and the second that contains the external definitions for several dlls.  The compilier didn't complain about the two definitions for the first .h file I mentioned, but I received the following error from the second .h file: "second C linkage of overloaded function not allowed"
0
Never miss a deadline with monday.com

The revolutionary project management tool is here!   Plan visually with a single glance and make sure your projects get done.

 
AlexFMCommented:
Yes, unfortunately this doesn't work for C functions. This works for class members and for functions exported from Dll without extern "C". Wait for some other suggestions.
0
 
rhaakAuthor Commented:
AlexFM, thanks for the post - it got me on the right track.  I've tried several things and will ask the question in a different way...

************
Is it possible to export overloaded functions to a dll for use in VB?
************

I've removed the 'extern "C"' so that the functions have unique decorated names, but when I attempt to list those in the EXPORTS section of the def file I get a warning that the function is defined twice and it will always use the first definition.  I'm not even sure that what I'm trying to do is possible.
0
 
rhaakAuthor Commented:
I may be using the wrong terms, but I meant that they have unique decorated names within C++.  I want to use the basic function name from VB.  Two different function names aren't possible, so it looks like I'm going to have to live with the existing compatibility issues.
0
 
jkrCommented:
Well, if they have unique decorated names, they have the same parameter list (that's what name decration is for). Something might have gone wrong then...
0
 
rhaakAuthor Commented:
By unique decorated names I mean that they have different decorated names - the parameter lists are different.  I guess I don't understand the comment???
0
 
jkrCommented:
No, misunderstanding on my side, sorry ;o)
0
 
rhaakAuthor Commented:
I accepted the answers because I found out for certain that this isn't possible.  Thanks for the help!
0
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.