IntPtr arithmetics | 易学教程

问题

I tried to allocate an array of structs in this way:

struct T {
    int a; int b;
}

data = Marshal.AllocHGlobal(count*Marshal.SizeOf(typeof(T));
...

I'd like to access to allocated data "binding" a struct to each element in array allocated with AllocHGlobal... something like this

T v;
v = (T)Marshal.PtrToStructure(data+1, typeof(T));

but i don't find any convenient way... why IntPtr lack of arithmetics? How can I workaround this in a "safe" way?

Someone could confirm that PtrToStructure function copy data into the struct variable? In other words, modifing the struct reflect modifications in the structure array data, or not?

Definitely, I want to operate on data pointed by an IntPtr using struct, without copying data each time, avoiding unsafe code.

Thank all!

回答1:

You have four options that I can think of, two using only "safe" code, and two using unsafe code. The unsafe options are likely to be significantly faster.

Safe:

Allocate your array in managed memory, and declare your P/Invoke function to take the array. i.e., instead of:
```
[DllImport(...)]
static extern bool Foo(int count, IntPtr arrayPtr);
```
make it
```
[DllImport(...)]
static extern bool Foo(int count, NativeType[] array);
```
(I've used NativeType for your struct name instead of T, since T is often used in a generic context.)

The problem with this approach is that, as I understand it, the NativeType[] array will be marshaled twice for every call to Foo. It will be copied from managed memory to unmanaged memory before the call, and copied from unmanaged memory to managed memory afterward. It can be improved, though, if Foo will only read from or write to the array. In this case, decorate the tarray parameter with an [In] (read only) or [Out] (write only) attribute. This allows the runtime to skip one of the copying steps.

As you're doing now, allocate the array in unmanaged memory, and use a bunch of calls to Marshal.PtrToStructure and Marshal.StructureToPtr. This will likely perform even worse than the first option, as you still need to copy elements of the array back and forth, and you're doing it in steps, so you have more overhead. On the other hand, if you have many elements in the array, but you only access a small number of them in between calls to Foo, then this may perform better. You might want a couple of little helper functions, like so:

static T ReadFromArray<T>(IntPtr arrayPtr, int index){
    // below, if you **know** you'll be on a 32-bit platform,
    // you can change ToInt64() to ToInt32().
    return (T)Marshal.PtrToStructure((IntPtr)(arrayPtr.ToInt64() +
        index * Marshal.SizeOf(typeof(T)));
}
// you might change `T value` below to `ref T value` to avoid one more copy
static void WriteToArray<T>(IntPtr arrayPtr, int index, T value){
    // below, if you **know** you'll be on a 32-bit platform,
    // you can change ToInt64() to ToInt32().
    Marshal.StructureToPtr(value, (IntPtr)(arrayPtr.ToInt64() +
        index * Marshal.SizeOf(typeof(T)), false);
}

Unsafe:

Allocate your array in unmanaged memory, and use pointers to access the elements. This means that all the code that uses the array must be within an unsafe block.

IntPtr arrayPtr = Marhsal.AllocHGlobal(count * sizeof(typeof(NativeType)));
unsafe{
    NativeType* ptr = (NativeType*)arrayPtr.ToPointer();

    ptr[0].Member1 = foo;
    ptr[1].Member2 = bar;
    /* and so on */
}
Foo(count, arrayPtr);

Allocate your array in managed memory, and pin it when you need to call the native routine:

NativeType[] array = new NativeType[count];
array[0].Member1 = foo;
array[1].Member2 = bar;
/* and so on */

unsafe{
    fixed(NativeType* ptr = array)
        Foo(count, (IntPtr)ptr);
        // or just Foo(count, ptr), if Foo is declare as such:
        //     static unsafe bool Foo(int count, NativeType* arrayPtr);
}

This last option is probably the cleanest if you can use unsafe code and are concerned about performance, because your only unsafe code is where you call the native routine. If performance isn't an issue (perhaps if the size of the array is relatively small), or if you can't use unsafe code (perhaps you don't have full trust), then the first option is likely cleanest, although, as I mentioned, if the number of elements you'll access in between calls to the native routine are a small percentage of the number of elements within the array, then the second option is faster.

Note:

The unsafe operations assume that your struct is blittable. If not, then the safe routines are your only option.

回答2:

"Why IntPtr lack of arithmetics?"

IntPtr stores just a memory address. It doesn't have any kind of information about the contents of that memory location. In this manner, it's similar to void*. To enable pointer arithmetic you have to know the size of the object pointed to.

Fundamentally, IntPtr is primarily designed to be used in managed contexts as an opaque handle (i.e. one that you don't directly dereference in managed code and you just keep around to pass to unmanaged code.) unsafe context provides pointers you can manipulate directly.

回答3:

Indeed, the IntPtr type does not have its own arithmetic operators. Proper (unsafe) pointer arithmetic is supported in C#, but IntPtr and the Marshal class exist for 'safer' usage of pointers.

I think you want something like the following:

int index = 1; // 2nd element of array
var v = (T)Marshal.PtrToStructure(new IntPtr(data.ToInt32() + 
    index * Marshal.SizeOf(typeof(T)), typeof(T));

Also, note that IntPtr has no implicit conversion between int and IntPtr, so no luck there.

Generally, if you're going to be doing anything remotely complex with pointers, it's probably best to opt for unsafe code.

回答4:

You can use the integral memory address of the pointer structure using IntPtr.ToInt32() but beware of platform "bitness" (32/64).

For typical pointer arithmetics, use pointers (look up fixed and unsafe in the documentation):

T data = new T[count];
fixed (T* ptr = &data)
{
    for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
    {
        // now you can use *ptr + i or ptr[i]
    }
}

EDIT:

I'm pondering that IntPtr allows you to handle pointers to data without explicitly manipulating pointer addresses. This allows you to interop with COM and native code without having to declare unsafe contexts. The only requirement that the runtime imposes is the unmanaged code permission. For those purposes, it seems like most marshalling methods only accept whole IntPtr data, and not pure integer or long types, as it provides a thin layer that protects against manipulating the content of the structure. You could manipulate the internals of an IntPtr directly, but that either requires unsafe pointers (again unsafe contexts) or reflection. Finally, IntPtr is automatically adopted to the platform's pointer size.

回答5:

You could use Marshal.UnsafeAddrOfPinnedArrayElement to get address of specific elements in an array using an IntPtr from a pinned array.

Here is a sample class for a wrapper around pinned arrays so that I can use them with IntPtr and Marshaling code:

    /// <summary>
    /// Pins an array of Blittable structs so that we can access the data as bytes. Manages a GCHandle around the array.
    /// https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.runtime.interopservices.marshal.unsafeaddrofpinnedarrayelement?view=netframework-4.7.2
    /// </summary>
    public sealed class PinnedArray<T> : IDisposable
    {
        public GCHandle Handle { get; }
        public T[] Array { get; }

        public int ByteCount { get; private set; }
        public IntPtr Ptr { get; private set; }

        public IntPtr ElementPointer(int n)
        {
            return Marshal.UnsafeAddrOfPinnedArrayElement(Array, n);
        }

        public PinnedArray(T[] xs)
        {
            Array = xs;
            // This will fail if the underlying type is not Blittable (e.g. not contiguous in memory)
            Handle = GCHandle.Alloc(xs, GCHandleType.Pinned);
            if (xs.Length != 0)
            {
                Ptr = ElementPointer(0);
                ByteCount = (int) Ptr.Distance(ElementPointer(Array.Length));
            }
            else
            {
                Ptr = IntPtr.Zero;
                ByteCount = 0;
            }
        }

        void DisposeImplementation()
        {
            if (Ptr != IntPtr.Zero)
            {
                Handle.Free();
                Ptr = IntPtr.Zero;
                ByteCount = 0;
            }
        }

        ~PinnedArray()
        {
            DisposeImplementation();
        }

        public void Dispose()
        {
            DisposeImplementation();
            GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
        }
    }

IMHO Working with PInvoke and IntPtr is as dangerous as marking your assembly as unsafe and using pointers in an unsafe context (if not more)

If you don't mind unsafe blocks you can write extension functions that operate on the IntPtr cast to byte* like the following:

    public static long Distance(this IntPtr a, IntPtr b)
    {
         return Math.Abs(((byte*)b) - ((byte*)a));
    }

However, like always you have to be aware of possible alignment issues when casting to different pointer types.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1318682/intptr-arithmetics

标签

marshalling

intptr