I’ve been meaning to post about this for a while. I plan to start a series on different patterns for Rust / C++ FFI that are being used in Gecko.

I don’t know how many posts this would take, and given I’m a not-very-consistent writer, I think I’m going to start with the most complex one to get it done.

This is the pattern that Firefox’s style system uses.

The use-case

The use-case for this is one or more of the following:

You have pretty complex Rust data structures that you need to expose to C++.

You can’t afford extra indirection / FFI calls / conversions / copies, or there’s too much API surface for it to be reasonable to add an extern function for each getter / setter / etc.

You want C++ code to be idiomatic, and not need wrappers around the Rust objects. That is, you want destructors, copy-constructors, copy-assignment, etc to just work, free your resources, etc.

In our case, the style system needs to expose a bunch of complex, recursive, generic data-structures like calc nodes, inside a manual-tagged-pointer for LengthPercentage. Or some other crazy tagged union types like transforms, or text-shadows, which involve reference-counted lists, etc.

There are also hundreds of CSS properties, with thousands of consumers across the whole Gecko layout engine, and thus:

We cannot rely on manual memory management , because some consumers will always get it wrong.

We cannot afford to add an extra indirection to each CSS value. Layout and painting are already memory-bound, we don’t want to make that worse.

So this pattern seems like a good fit for us.

The plan

The plan to accomplish it is not too complex on the surface:

Get cbindgen to generate a bunch of idiomatic C++ code based on our gazillion Rust types. Have equivalent C++ implementations of your core Rust data-structures, with destructors / proper semantics, and so on. Profit?

We’ll go about all the details of how to make that happen, as well as a proper step-by-step example below.

The caveats

The plus side is of course that you win idiomatic C++ code, with all the gnarly boring stuff generated for you. You can poke at Rust structs directly, get pointers to them, copy them, all without having to define an FFI function for each operation you want to perform. Sounds amazing!

However, nothing is free, and if you go for this approach you need to consider the following caveats:

Passing structs by value on the FFI boundary between Rust and C++ becomes unsafe : You need to use references / pointers. The reason for this is that having destructors and such changes the C++ ABI. Having manual Drop / Clone implementations however doesn’t change the ABI in the same way in Rust (and I think that’s good, I don’t think Rust should be in the business of being ABI-compatible with C++). In Firefox we have a clang-based static analysis to prevent people from shooting themselves in the foot.

You need to duplicate manual Drop implementations in C++. This is usually not a big deal (the only things that usually need manual drop implementations are data-structures or such). Here’s an example which I’ll talk about later.

These haven’t been a problem in practice for us. It’s a bit more complex setup than just declaring and using FFI functions, but it pays off by not having to do manual memory management in C++.

Demo

I’ve put a simple demo on a GitHub repo of a somewhat-minimal setup for this.

In practice there’s a few differences from the Firefox setup. On Firefox:

The C++ code is not built from build.rs (as you may imagine).

(as you may imagine). cbindgen is run as a CLI tool, because of that. We need the headers exported independently of the rust build.

is run as a CLI tool, because of that. We need the headers exported independently of the rust build. We have bindings in both directions, actually, so we also use rust-bindgen to be able to poke at C++ structs and classes, for a variety of reasons.

But those shouldn’t really matter for this example. Modulo those, it should hopefully be a good overview of how the setup works. Here’s the different parts of the demo, explained step by step.

The program we want to build

The program we want is simple enough… We want to expose a tree to C++, and want to run some calculations on that tree in C++.

If we weren’t interfacing with C++, our tree would look like this:

#[derive(Clone, Debug)] pub enum TreeNode { /// This node just has a value. Leaf ( f32 ), /// This node sums all the children. Sum ( Box < [ TreeNode ] > ), /// This node returns 1 if the two things are the same, and zero otherwise. Cmp ( Box < TreeNode > , Box < TreeNode > ), }

What we effectively want to do is something like:

let tree = create_some_complex_tree (); let value = unsafe { let_cpp_compute_the_value ( & tree ); }; assert_eq! ( value , expected_value );

Or something like that.

Exposing the type to C++

Let’s see what cbindgen thinks about our TreeNode type. When running it on the following Rust file:

#[derive(Clone, Debug)] pub enum TreeNode { /// This node just has a value. Leaf ( f32 ), /// This node sums all the children. Sum ( Box < [ TreeNode ] > ), /// This node returns 1 if the two things are the same, and zero otherwise. Cmp ( Box < TreeNode > , Box < TreeNode > ), } #[no_mangle] pub extern "C" fn root ( node : & TreeNode ) {}

We get back only this:

#include <cstdarg> #include <cstdint> #include <cstdlib> #include <new> struct TreeNode ; extern "C" { void root ( const TreeNode * node ); } // extern "C"

Well… That’s not great, but not quite unexpected.

Our type needs a memory layout that C++ can understand. The default Rust struct layout is intentionally unspecified. Rust does a lot of smart stuff like reordering fields, packing enums, etc.

In order to dumb down rustc so that it can interoperate with C++ we need to tag the enum with the #[repr] attribute. I’ve gone with #[repr(C, u8)] , but we have other choices here, see this rfc and the nomicon for the details.

With that out of the way, the layout of Box<[TreeNode]> and Box<TreeNode> should be well-defined, so can cbindgen do the right thing for us?

The answer is “not quite”. cbindgen doesn’t understand Box<[T]> deeply enough, and assumes the type is not FFI-safe. I just filed an issue on maybe getting some smarts for this, but cbindgen would need to generate a generic struct on its own which is not great…

So for now we’re going to do this manually.

OwnedSlice

OwnedSlice<T> is going to be our ffi-friendly replacement for Box<[T]> . It’s a very straightforward type, taken almost verbatim from Firefox.

It has the same layout as Box<[T]> , and we can use it on our TreeNode . It looks like:

/// cbindgen:derive-eq=false /// cbindgen:derive-neq=false #[repr(C)] pub struct OwnedSlice < T : Sized > { ptr : NonNull < T > , len : usize , _ phantom : PhantomData < T > , }

Note those two cbindgen: annotations. We’ll get to those later.

The final TreeNode type looks like:

#[derive(Clone, Debug)] #[repr(C, u8)] pub enum TreeNode { /// This node just has a value. Leaf ( f32 ), /// This node sums all the children. Sum ( OwnedSlice < TreeNode > ), /// This node returns 1 if the two things are the same, and zero otherwise. Cmp ( Box < TreeNode > , Box < TreeNode > ), }

And cbindgen generates the following for it (without any flags, we’ll see about that in a min):

template < typename T > struct Box ; struct TreeNode { enum class Tag : uint8_t { /// This node just has a value. Leaf , /// This node sums all the children. Sum , /// This node returns 1 if the two things are the same, and zero otherwise. Cmp , }; struct Leaf_Body { float _0 ; }; struct Sum_Body { OwnedSlice < TreeNode > _0 ; }; struct Cmp_Body { Box < TreeNode > _0 ; Box < TreeNode > _1 ; }; Tag tag ; union { Leaf_Body leaf ; Sum_Body sum ; Cmp_Body cmp ; }; };

It also generates bindings for OwnedSlice , which I’ve omitted for brevity.

cbindgen.toml

We have the base type working, and it looks nice. But poking at it and using it from C++ is still very error-prone.

cbindgen has a bunch of flags to make interacting with tagged enums and structs from C++ better. You can look at the docs in the cbindgen repo, but here are the ones we’re going to use:

[struct] # generates operator== derive_eq = true # generates operator!= derive_neq = true [enum] # Generates IsFoo() methods. derive_helper_methods = true # Generates `const T& AsFoo() const` methods. derive_const_casts = true # Adds an `assert(IsFoo())` on each `AsFoo()` method. cast_assert_name = "assert" # Generates destructors. derive_tagged_enum_destructor = true # Generates copy-constructors. derive_tagged_enum_copy_constructor = true # Generates copy-assignment operators. derive_tagged_enum_copy_assignment = true # Generates a private default-constructor for enums that doesn't initialize # anything. Either you do this or you provide your own default constructor. private_default_tagged_enum_constructor = true

This generates a bunch more code for TreeNode , as advertised. Our code still doesn’t compile though, given there’s only a forward-declaration for Box :

template < typename T > struct Box ;

Defining Box .

We’re going to define a simple smart pointer type for Box that has the same semantics and layout as Rust (assuming sized types), and include it in a forwards.h file from cbindgen.toml.

The implementation should be pretty straightforward so I won’t read through it.

This makes our bindings compile, but still OwnedSlice has issues.

Making OwnedSlice do the right thing from C++

Remember those cbindgen: lines in OwnedSlice ? Here’s where they come into play. The default operator== for OwnedSlice would have compared the pointer and length values, and that’s it. It wouldn’t have the same semantics as our rust type, which would compare the values individually.

Also, OwnedSlice doesn’t manage its contents properly yet. We can fix that easily, though.

cbindgen has an [export.body] section that allows you to define stuff like methods, constructors, operators, etc. in the body of an item.

In this case, we just want a few basic things:

[export.body] "OwnedSlice" = """ inline void Clear(); inline void CopyFrom(const OwnedSlice&); // cpp shenanigans. inline OwnedSlice(); inline ~OwnedSlice(); inline OwnedSlice(const OwnedSlice&); inline OwnedSlice& operator=(const OwnedSlice&); std::span<T> AsSpan() { return { ptr, len }; } inline std::span<const T> AsSpan() const { return { ptr, len }; } bool IsEmpty() { return AsSpan().empty(); } inline bool operator==(const OwnedSlice&) const; inline bool operator!=(const OwnedSlice&) const; """

We’ll be using C++20’s std::span to allow ranged loops and such instead of implementing iterators ourselves (I’m lazy, turns out).

We’ve added a few inline methods to help with memory management that we now need to implement.

We’ll include the file with the implementation of these methods at the end of the cbindgen -generated file:

trailer = """ #include " my_ffi_inlines.h " """

That file is also relatively straightforward, and it basically keeps the same invariants as the Rust counterpart does.

The actual C++ code.

With these two building-blocks in place ( Box and OwnedSlice ), we can use our TreeNode from C++ the same way as any other idiomatic C++ struct.

C++ consumers of the TreeNode type can use it transparently, just like Rust consumers, without leaking resources or leaving dangling pointers around accidentally. Using it looks like reasonably modern C++.

The actual C++ code for our computation is here.

If we wanted to add some idiomatic methods to TreeNode , we could do that using [export.body] , just like we’ve done with OwnedSlice::AsSpan .

This is as much as I can write today, you can see all the gory details in the demo repo. Hopefully I haven’t glanced over too much stuff.

Conclusion

Of course this pattern is probably not worth it for just a single type, as it requires a bit of setup. But when you have a massive API surface (like we do in the Firefox style engine) the effort does pay off.

My favourite commit to link to is this one in which I switched Firefox to use cbindgen for the transform property. It:

Modernized the existing (old) C++ code.

Improved performance.

Removed a lot of boring / repetitive / error-prone glue code.

Over time, we’ve needed a couple more data structures. We have C++-compatible versions of:

OwnedStr : an owned utf-8 string (basically, Box<str> ). It’s built on top of OwnedSlice so it doesn’t even need manual destructors and such, just some convenience methods to get the string as a Gecko substring.

Arc : We already had our own Arc copy for various reasons (to avoid weak reference count overhead, for other ffi shenanigans, and to add reference-count logging to detect leaks). Switching it to this model was trivial. There’s a crates.io version of this called Triomphe which Manish maintains.

ArcSlice : an Arc<[T]> , but stored as a thin pointer, built on top of that. It should also be buildable on top of Triomphe, though I don’t think Firefox’s version is general-purpose enough to put on crates.io. Maybe, though?

We have destructors for a couple other structs for which we implement size optimizations manually like LengthPercentage , but that’s about it.

I tried to explain the trade-offs of this approach to do FFI with C++ above, hopefully if you read until here now you have a better sense of them too, and if it fits your use-case you have the tools to do the right thing.

I personally don’t love to have duplicate code for our data-structures in both Rust and C++. But for us it works out alright: the benefits we get (nice idiomatic C++ code, having all our style system structs defined in Rust, which can use a bunch of proc macros, and having them interoperate seamlessly with C++) are definitely worth a couple duplicated boring lines.

Congratulations if you made it all the way here. I hope I didn’t write too many typos in the process, my English always sucks… Thanks to Daniel for spotting a bunch already :)

Feel free to send comments or corrections to my email, Twitter, or to GitHub directly, your call.