Thread: need of void pointer

memcpy(3): copy memory area - Linux man page
malloc(3): Allocate/free dynamic memory - Linux man page
Useful for when you don't really care about the details of what kind of pointer you have.

So for example, the same malloc can be used in the same way when dealing with pointers to chars, or pointers to doubles.

Void pointers are commonly used in libraries for "user data" in callback prototypes or as members of structs. For example, pthreads are created using a prototype like this:

Code:

void *mythread (void *data);

This is submitted to a library function, pthread_create() via a function pointer. One of the other arguments to pthread_create is a void*. The library creates a thread and calls the user function (which must have the prototype above) and passes it the void*. This means I, as the user of the library, can pass anything I want into a new thread:

Code:

struct thread_data {
     int n;
     char stuff[256];
};

void *mythread (void *p) {
      struct thread_data *data = p;  // need to do this so we can access members of the struct
      do whatever with data->stuff, etc.
}

struct thread_data eg;
eg.n = 666;
strcpy(eg.stuff, "hello world");
pthread_create(mythread, (void*)&eg);   // (simplified) library call

This way, I do not have to write a custom threading library for every task. So void pointers are actually extreme useful, more or less essential tools in C.

Originally Posted by tubby123

So y do u want to receive the user's data in a void pointer

Because "you" (the designer of the library) do not know what kind of data it will be, and don't want to restrict the user in this respect. Eg, pthreads could instead use an int* pointer, presuming all anyone will want to pass around is an array of ints, or a char* pointer, presuming all anyone will want to do is manipulate strings.

A similar example would be a hash table or linked list implementation. These are somewhat simpler than a threading library, so very often you might write one specifically designed for a specific task. However, you could also write a generic one, eg:

Code:

struct node {
     struct node *next;  // singly linked list
     void *data;
}

What "data" is is irrelevant to most linked list functions -- insert, delete, etc. It does not have to be involved in that section of code at all. And you could use this linked list for a variety of tasks, again using the data pointer.

Which is the same reason malloc() returns void*. Without void*, we would need a separate function to allocate memory for every possible type. This would not be such a great system, esp. since C allows for user defined types. That could be dealt with via typecasting, but using void* is a much nicer solution.

Originally Posted by \007

You can also use void pointers to get around type-safety. It's like playing Russian roulette.

Well -- you should be able to check the cylinder first, which takes most of "the danger" out. But given the opportunity to make a mistake, many people will...

Originally Posted by tubby123

In that case, whats the point ? The very need of having different types of pointers is Pointer Arithmetic. for eg,
1)int* p; p++ ; - points to the location after 2 bytes
2)char* p; p++; - points to the next byte.

[$0.02]
As you have read above pointers are used for much more than just performing 'pointer arithmetic'. This is due to the fact that the only real native datatype to computers is a bit, and it is either on or off. Now to actually perform something useful with computers containers have been created for these bits, specifically a byte and a word. Anything above this is an abstraction layer that is used to generate useful information such as custom datatypes as well as designating the format of these containers to provide 'higher level' native types such as a float, int, ect. Thus since it is all just bits, you only need a type definition when you want to interpret your container, aka do something with the information.
[/$0.02]

Also I see that you are still using Turbo-C. As a self-proclaimed ambassador for the human race I would like you to join us in this century and formally invite you to obtain a compiler that Fred Flinstone didn't create. Here are some free suggestions:

Pelles C-great compiler and IDE, FREE, only does C.
MSVC++ Express-great compiler and IDE, FREE, C & C++

Yes malloc could return a pointer to any other type e.g. float*, but why should floats get special treatment? Then float would not require a cast but everything else would.
The best thing about it though is that by returning void* nothing requires a cast (rather than everything), since void* is implicitly convertible to every other type.