I have been going through the Atmel library USB for AT91SAM7 and there is something I don’t understand. Endpoint is a structure defined as follows:
typedef struct {
volatile unsigned char state;
volatile unsigned char bank;
volatile unsigned short size;
Transfer transfer; //thus Endpoint contains an instance of "Transfer"
} Endpoint
point;
And Transfer itself is a structure as follows:
typedef struct {
char *pData;
volatile int buffered;
volatile int transferred;
volatile int remaining;
volatile TransferCallback fCallback;
void *pArgument;
} Transfer;
And TransferCallback is a function with the following prototype:
typedef void (*TransferCallback)(void *pArg, unsigned char status, unsigned int transferred, unsigned int remaining);
also two pointers have been defined as the following:
Endpoint *pEndpoint = &(endpoints[bEndpoint]);
Transfer *pTransfer = &(pEndpoint->transfer);
I want to know why such a way to call the function TransferCallback is valid:
((TransferCallback) pTransfer->fCallback) (followed by the required arguments passed )
But this is not valid:
((TransferCallback)pEndpoint->transfer->fCallback)?
how could I directly call TransferCallback without using a pointer such as pTransfer in between?
I tried a number of combinations but none worked.
Note that Endpoint does not have a pointer to Transfer member (*Transfer), but a Transfer member. In machine terms, rather than a single word of memory within each Endpoint being used as a pointer to a Transfer, all the fields of the Transfer member are stored directly inside the memory allocated for the Endpoint.
To cut to the chase, what you need is:
((TransferCallback)pEndpoint->transfer.fCallback)
Regarding the title to the OP: how to call a function by pointer in C
+1 to Alex's answer of your question about How, but there is another point that can be made in the interest of knowing Why choose a function pointer over just providing the normal function name in the first place; Function pointers are especially useful in C* (see *) when you have a collection of functions that are similar in that they contain the same argument list, but have different outputs. You can define an array of function pointers, making it easier, for example, to call the functions in that family from a switch, or a loop, or when creating a series of threads in a pool that include similar worker functions as arguments. Calling an array makes it as simple as changing the index of the pointer to get the specific functionality you need for each unique case.
As a simple example, the two string functions strcat() and strcpy() have the argument list: (char *, const char *), therefore, may be assigned to an array of function pointers. First create the function pointer array:
char * (*pStr[2])( char *a, const char *b);` //array of function pointers pStr[]
Then, make the assignements of strcat and strcpy to the array:
void someFunc(void)
{
pStr[0] = strcat; //assign strcat to pointer [0]
pStr[1] = strcpy; //assign strcpy to pointer [1]
}
Now, strcat() or strcpy() can be called as:
int main(void)
{
char a[100]="kjdhlfjgls";
char b[100]="kjdhlfjgls";
someFunc();//define function pointers
pStr[0](a, "aaaaaaaa"); //strcat
pStr[1](b, "aaaaaaaa"); //strcpy
return 0;
}
Example output:
This is just a simple example. It does not explore the full extent of usefulness function pointers can provide, but illustrates another reason why functions pointers may be preferred in some situations.
* This illustration is targeted only to C, as opposed to C++, where qualities of inheritance and polymorphism inherent to that language would make this suggestion unnecessary.
Related
I am trying to build a parser to a given input, there are 8 possible commands. So I figured that instead of using the ugly technique of a case switch block like that:
switch(command)
case cmd1:
.... /*call a function that do cmd1*/
case cmd2
..../*call a function that do cmd2*/
I will define in a header an array of structs, each one contains the name of the function, and a pointer to a function:
typedef struct command_info
{
char *name;
void (*func)(int)
};
command_info command_table[] = {{"func1", &func1}, {"func2", &func2} }
So that I can switch to the more elegant:
int i;
for(i = 0; i < COMMAND_TABLE_LENGTH; i++)
if(!strcmp(command_table[i].name, command))
command_table[i].func(2);
My only problem is, that the functions have different parameters (all return void). This is not a problem for me since I can check if the function is func1 or func2 search for one int argument for example, and if it is func3 or func4 search for two (still more compact than case switch). But the function pointer only points to a function with a certain type and amount of arguments. How can I make a universal pointer that can point to any function?
But the function pointer only points to a function with a certain type and amount of arguments.
How can I make a universal pointer that can point to any function?
In OP's limited case, use void (*func)().
Any function pointer can be converted with a type cast to another function pointer and retain an equivalent function address. #Jonathan Leffler
int (*foo)(int) = (int (*)(int)) sqrt;
double (*sq)(double) = (double (*)(double)) foo;
printf("%f\n", sq(2)); // prints 1.414214
A function pointer need not provide a function parameter signature.
// No parameter info
// vv
int (*foo)() = (int (*)()) sqrt;
OP has "functions have different parameters (all return void)", so in OP's case code could use a limited universal function pointer of void (*func)() and lose parameter checking.
typedef struct {
char *name; // suggest const char *name
void (*func)(); // no parameter info nor checking
} command_info;
char buf[100];
// void setbuf(FILE * restrict stream, char * restrict buf);
command_info fred = { "my_setbuf", setbuf };
// Both compile, 2nd is UB.
fred.func(stdin, buf); // No parameter checking.
fred.func(0); // No parameter checking.
Code also incurs a subtle issue when calling .funf(): the parameters ranking lower than int/unsigned are promoted as well as float parameters before passed to the function. Best to make certain the parameters are not char, float, short, _Bool etc. to avoid compatible signature issues.
void * is a universal object pointer. It may be insufficient to encode a function pointer. So it is not a portable candidate. It is not uncommon for the size of a function pointer to be wider than sizeof(void*).
I have a struct that looks like this:
typedef struct dictionary_t{
char word[30];
int foo;
int bar;
} dictionary_t;
Which forms an ordered array:
dictionary_t dictionary[100];
I would like to search this array for a string using bsearch() and get a pointer to the struct. So far this has worked:
dictionary_t* result;
char target[30] = "target";
result = bsearch(&target, dictionary, dict_length, sizeof(dictionary_t), (int(*)(const void*,const void*)) strcmp);
However this is a bit of a hack and only works because the string happens to be the first member of the struct. What would be a better way to find a string within an array of structs and return a pointer to the struct?
You should implement your own comparator function and pass it in. The most important (non-trivial) thing to keep in mind here is that according to the standard,
The implementation shall ensure that the first argument is always a pointer to the key.
This means that you can write a comparator that compares a string such as target and a dictionary_t object. Here is a simple function that compares your stucts to a string:
int compare_string_to_dict(const void *s, const void *d) {
return strncmp(s, ((const dictionary_t *)d)->word, sizeof(((dictionary_t *)0)->word));
}
You would then pass it by name as a normal function pointer to bsearch:
result = bsearch(target, dictionary, dict_length, sizeof(dictionary_t), compare_string_to_dict);
Note that target does not need to have its address passed in since it is no longer mocking a struct.
In case you are wondering, sizeof(((dictionary_t *)0)->word) is an idiomatic way of getting the size of word in dictionary_t. You could also do sizeof(dictionary[0].word) or define a constant equal to 30. It comes from here.
I am trying to understand function pointers and am stuggling. I have seen the sorting example in K&R and a few other similar examples. My main problem is with what the computer is actually doing. I created a very simple program to try to see the basics. Please see the following:
#include <stdio.h>
int func0(int*,int*);
int func1(int*,int*);
int main(){
int i = 1;
myfunc(34,23,(int(*)(void*,void*))(i==1?func0:func1));//34 and 23 are arbitrary inputs
}
void myfunc(int x, int y, int(*somefunc)(void *, void *)){
int *xx =&x;
int *yy=&y;
printf("%i",somefunc(xx,yy));
}
int func0(int *x, int *y){
return (*x)*(*y);
}
int func1(int *x, int *y){
return *x+*y;
}
The program either multiplies or adds two numbers depending on some variable (i in the main function - should probably be an argument in the main). fun0 multiplies two ints and func1 adds them.
I know that this example is simple but how is passing a function pointer preferrable to putting a conditional inside the function myfunc?
i.e. in myfunc have the following:
if(i == 1)printf("%i",func0(xx,yy));
else printf("%i",func1(xx,yy));
If I did this the result would be the same but without the use of function pointers.
Your understanding of how function pointers work is just fine. What you're not seeing is how a software system will benefit from using function pointers. They become important when working with components that are not aware of the others.
qsort() is a good example. qsort will let you sort any array and is not actually aware of what makes up the array. So if you have an array of structs, or more likely pointers to structs, you would have to provide a function that could compare the structs.
struct foo {
char * name;
int magnitude;
int something;
};
int cmp_foo(const void *_p1, const void *_p2)
{
p1 = (struct foo*)_p1;
p2 = (struct foo*)_p2;
return p1->magnitude - p2->magnitude;
}
struct foo ** foos;
// init 10 foo structures...
qsort(foos, 10, sizeof(foo *), cmp_foo);
Then the foos array will be sorted based on the magnitude field.
As you can see, this allows you to use qsort for any type -- you only have to provide the comparison function.
Another common usage of function pointers are callbacks, for example in GUI programming. If you want a function to be called when a button is clicked, you would provide a function pointer to the GUI library when setting up the button.
how is passing a function pointer preferrable to putting a conditional inside the function myfunc
Sometimes it is impossible to put a condition there: for example, if you are writing a sorting algorithm, and you do not know what you are sorting ahead of time, you simply cannot put a conditional; function pointer lets you "plug in" a piece of computation into the main algorithm without jumping through hoops.
As far as how the mechanism works, the idea is simple: all your compiled code is located in the program memory, and the CPU executes it starting at a certain address. There are instructions to make CPU jump between addresses, remember the current address and jump, recall the address of a prior jump and go back to it, and so on. When you call a function, one of the things the CPU needs to know is its address in the program memory. The name of the function represents that address. You can supply that address directly, or you can assign it to a pointer for indirect access. This is similar to accessing values through a pointer, except in this case you access the code indirectly, instead of accessing the data.
First of all, you can never typecast a function pointer into a function pointer of a different type. That is undefined behavior in C (C11 6.5.2.2).
A very important advise when dealing with function pointers is to always use typedefs.
So, your code could/should be rewritten as:
typedef int (*func_t)(int*, int*);
int func0(int*,int*);
int func1(int*,int*);
int main(){
int i = 1;
myfunc(34,23, (i==1?func0:func1)); //34 and 23 are arbitrary inputs
}
void myfunc(int x, int y, func_t func){
To answer the question, you want to use function pointers as parameters when you don't know the nature of the function. This is common when writing generic algorithms.
Take the standard C function bsearch() as an example:
void *bsearch (const void *key,
const void *base,
size_t nmemb,
size_t size,
int (*compar)(const void *, const void *));
);
This is a generic binary search algorithm, searching through any form of one-dimensional arrray, containing unknown types of data, such as user-defined types. Here, the "compar" function is comparing two objects of unknown nature for equality, returning a number to indicate this.
"The function shall return an integer less than, equal to, or greater than zero if the key object is considered, respectively, to be less than, to match, or to be greater than the array element."
The function is written by the caller, who knows the nature of the data. In computer science, this is called a "function object" or sometimes "functor". It is commonly encountered in object-oriented design.
An example (pseudo code):
typedef struct // some user-defined type
{
int* ptr;
int x;
int y;
} Something_t;
int compare_Something_t (const void* p1, const void* p2)
{
const Something_t* s1 = (const Something_t*)p1;
const Something_t* s2 = (const Something_t*)p2;
return s1->y - s2->y; // some user-defined comparison relevant to the object
}
...
Something_t search_key = { ... };
Something_t array[] = { ... };
Something_t* result;
result = bsearch(&search_key,
array,
sizeof(array) / sizeof(Something_t), // number of objects
sizeof(Something_t), // size of one object
compare_Something_t // function object
);
Let's say that any C function has a pointer already declared, but not assigned any value yet. We will int for our examples.
int *ptr;
The goal of the function is not to assign ptr any dynamic memory on the heap, so no malloc call. Instead, we want to have it point to an array of fixed size n. I know I could accomplish this like so:
int arr[n];
ptr = arr;
However, the code could get very messy and hard to read if we need to do this many times in a function, ie, a struct of many pointer fields all need to point to an array of fixed length. Is there a better way to accomplish this in one line? I was thinking of something similar to below, but it looks too ambiguous and uncompilable:
int *ptr;
// Many other things happen in between...
ptr[n];
***EDIT***
Here, the below additional information may help guide some more answers (not saying that the current answers are not fine). In my use case, the pointers are declared in a struct and, in a function, I am assigning the pointers to an array. I want to know if there is a simpler way to accomplish this than in the below code (all pointers to point to fixed-length array):
struct foo {
int* a;
short* b;
char* c;
...
};
void func(void) {
struct foo f;
int n = ...;
int tempArr1[n];
f.a = tempArr1;
short tempArr2[n];
f.b = tempArr2;
char tempArr3[n];
f.c = tempArr3;
...
}
You cannot declare an array and assign it to an existing pointer in a single declaration. However, you can assign an array pointer to a newly declared pointer, like this:
int arr[n], *ptr = arr;
If you insist on staying within a single line, you could use an ugly macro, like this:
#define DECL_ASSIGN_INT_ARRAY(name,size,pointer) int name[(size)]; pointer = name;
The clarity of this one-liner is far lower than that of a two-line version from your post, so I would keep your initial version.
EDIT (in response to the edit of the question)
Another option is to create an unused pointer variable in a declaration, and assign your pointer in an initializer, like this:
void func(void) {
struct foo f;
int n = ...;
int tempArr1[n], *tempPtr1 = f.a = tempArr1;
short tempArr2[n], *tempPtr2 = f.b = tempArr2;
char tempArr3[n], *tempPtr3 = f.c = tempArr3;
...
}
This seems like a clear case where you're in need of some refactoring. Take the similar statements, extract them into a new function (by passing a reference to the struct and the data you want the struct fields to point to) and give this new function a meaningful name.
This is probably more maintainable and readable than some fancy pointer arithmetic shortcut that you'll forget about in a few weeks or months.
The difference between ptr and arr in you example is you can change ptr's value. So I guess you want to move ptr through the array.
So how about this:
int arr[n], id=0;
And you change the value of id and use arr+id as ptr.
I guess the way to do this is to use a macro. Something like (untested)
#define autoptr(name,size) int Arrayname[size]; name = Arrayname;
I'm not clear why this is helping I think it might "look ugly" but will be easier to maintain without the macro. In general, hiding what you are actually doing is a bad thing.
I was trying to create a pseudo super struct to print array of structs. My basic
structures are as follows.
/* Type 10 Count */
typedef struct _T10CNT
{
int _cnt[20];
} T10CNT;
...
/* Type 20 Count */
typedef struct _T20CNT
{
long _cnt[20];
} T20CNT;
...
I created the below struct to print the array of above mentioned structures. I got dereferencing void pointer error while compiling the below code snippet.
typedef struct _CMNCNT
{
long _cnt[3];
} CMNCNT;
static int printCommonStatistics(void *cmncntin, int cmncnt_nelem, int cmncnt_elmsize)
{
int ii;
for(ii=0; ii<cmncnt_nelem; ii++)
{
CMNCNT *cmncnt = (CMNCNT *)&cmncntin[ii*cmncnt_elmsize];
fprintf(stout,"STATISTICS_INP: %d\n",cmncnt->_cnt[0]);
fprintf(stout,"STATISTICS_OUT: %d\n",cmncnt->_cnt[1]);
fprintf(stout,"STATISTICS_ERR: %d\n",cmncnt->_cnt[2]);
}
return SUCCESS;
}
T10CNT struct_array[10];
...
printCommonStatistics(struct_array, NELEM(struct_array), sizeof(struct_array[0]);
...
My intention is to have a common function to print all the arrays. Please let me know the correct way of using it.
Appreciate the help in advance.
Edit: The parameter name is changed to cmncntin from cmncnt. Sorry it was typo error.
Thanks,
Mathew Liju
I think your design is going to fail, but I am also unconvinced that the other answers I see fully deal with the deeper reasons why.
It appears that you are trying to use C to deal with generic types, something that always gets to be hairy. You can do it, if you are careful, but it isn't easy, and in this case, I doubt if it would be worthwhile.
Deeper Reason: Let's assume we get past the mere syntactic (or barely more than syntactic) issues. Your code shows that T10CNT contains 20 int and T20CNT contains 20 long. On modern 64-bit machines - other than under Win64 - sizeof(long) != sizeof(int). Therefore, the code inside your printing function should be distinguishing between dereferencing int arrays and long arrays. In C++, there's a rule that you should not try to treat arrays polymorphically, and this sort of thing is why. The CMNCNT type contains 3 long values; different from both the T10CNT and T20CNT structures in number, though the base type of the array matches T20CNT.
Style Recommendation: I strongly recommend avoiding leading underscores on names. In general, names beginning with underscore are reserved for the implementation to use, and to use as macros. Macros have no respect for scope; if the implementation defines a macro _cnt it would wreck your code. There are nuances to what names are reserved; I'm not about to go into those nuances. It is much simpler to think 'names starting with underscore are reserved', and it will steer you clear of trouble.
Style Suggestion: Your print function returns success unconditionally. That is not sensible; your function should return nothing, so that the caller does not have to test for success or failure (since it can never fail). A careful coder who observes that the function returns a status will always test the return status, and have error handling code. That code will never be executed, so it is dead, but it is hard for anyone (or the compiler) to determine that.
Surface Fix: Temporarily, we can assume that you can treat int and long as synonyms; but you must get out of the habit of thinking that they are synonyms, though. The void * argument is the correct way to say "this function takes a pointer of indeterminate type". However, inside the function, you need to convert from a void * to a specific type before you do indexing.
typedef struct _CMNCNT
{
long count[3];
} CMNCNT;
static void printCommonStatistics(const void *data, size_t nelem, size_t elemsize)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < nelem; i++)
{
const CMNCNT *cmncnt = (const CMNCNT *)((const char *)data + (i * elemsize));
fprintf(stdout,"STATISTICS_INP: %ld\n", cmncnt->count[0]);
fprintf(stdout,"STATISTICS_OUT: %ld\n", cmncnt->count[1]);
fprintf(stdout,"STATISTICS_ERR: %ld\n", cmncnt->count[2]);
}
}
(I like the idea of a file stream called stout too. Suggestion: use cut'n'paste on real source code--it is safer! I'm generally use "sed 's/^/ /' file.c" to prepare code for cut'n'paste into an SO answer.)
What does that cast line do? I'm glad you asked...
The first operation is to convert the const void * into a const char *; this allows you to do byte-size operations on the address. In the days before Standard C, char * was used in place of void * as the universal addressing mechanism.
The next operation adds the correct number of bytes to get to the start of the ith element of the array of objects of size elemsize.
The second cast then tells the compiler "trust me - I know what I'm doing" and "treat this address as the address of a CMNCNT structure".
From there, the code is easy enough. Note that since the CMNCNT structure contains long value, I used %ld to tell the truth to fprintf().
Since you aren't about to modify the data in this function, it is not a bad idea to use the const qualifier as I did.
Note that if you are going to be faithful to sizeof(long) != sizeof(int), then you need two separate blocks of code (I'd suggest separate functions) to deal with the 'array of int' and 'array of long' structure types.
The type of void is deliberately left incomplete. From this, it follows you cannot dereference void pointers, and neither you can take the sizeof of it. This means you cannot use the subscript operator using it like an array.
The moment you assign something to a void pointer, any type information of the original pointed to type is lost, so you can only dereference if you first cast it back to the original pointer type.
First and the most important, you pass T10CNT* to the function, but you try to typecast (and dereference) that to CMNCNT* in your function. This is not valid and undefined behavior.
You need a function printCommonStatistics for each type of array elements. So, have a
printCommonStatisticsInt, printCommonStatisticsLong, printCommonStatisticsChar which all differ by their first argument (one taking int*, the other taking long*, and so on). You might create them using macros, to avoid redundant code.
Passing the struct itself is not a good idea, since then you have to define a new function for each different size of the contained array within the struct (since they are all different types). So better pass the contained array directly (struct_array[0]._cnt, call the function for each index)
Change the function declaration to char * like so:
static int printCommonStatistics(char *cmncnt, int cmncnt_nelem, int cmncnt_elmsize)
the void type does not assume any particular size whereas a char will assume a byte size.
You can't do this:
cmncnt->_cnt[0]
if cmnct is a void pointer.
You have to specify the type. You may need to re-think your implementation.
The function
static int printCommonStatistics(void *cmncntin, int cmncnt_nelem, int cmncnt_elmsize)
{
char *cmncntinBytes;
int ii;
cmncntinBytes = (char *) cmncntin;
for(ii=0; ii<cmncnt_nelem; ii++)
{
CMNCNT *cmncnt = (CMNCNT *)(cmncntinBytes + ii*cmncnt_elmsize); /* Ptr Line */
fprintf(stdout,"STATISTICS_INP: %d\n",cmncnt->_cnt[0]);
fprintf(stdout,"STATISTICS_OUT: %d\n",cmncnt->_cnt[1]);
fprintf(stdout,"STATISTICS_ERR: %d\n",cmncnt->_cnt[2]);
}
return SUCCESS;
}
Works for me.
The issue is that on the line commented "Ptr Line" the code adds a pointer to an integer. Since our pointer is a char * we move forward in memory sizeof(char) * ii * cmncnt_elemsize, which is what we want since a char is one byte. Your code tried to do an equivalent thing moving forward sizeof(void) * ii * cmncnt_elemsize, but void doesn't have a size, so the compiler gave you the error.
I'd change T10CNT and T20CNT to both use int or long instead of one with each. You're depending on sizeof(int) == sizeof(long)
On this line:
CMNCNT *cmncnt = (CMNCNT *)&cmncnt[ii*cmncnt_elmsize];
You are trying to declare a new variable called cmncnt, but a variable with this name already exists as a parameter to the function. You might want to use a different variable name to solve this.
Also you may want to pass a pointer to a CMNCNT to the function instead of a void pointer, because then the compiler will do the pointer arithmetic for you and you don't have to cast it. I don't see the point of passing a void pointer when all you do with it is cast it to a CMNCNT. (Which is not a very descriptive name for a data type, by the way.)
Your expression
(CMNCNT *)&cmncntin[ii*cmncnt_elmsize]
tries to take the address of cmncntin[ii*cmncnt_elmsize] and then cast that pointer to type (CMNCNT *). It can't get the address of cmncntin[ii*cmncnt_elmsize] because cmncntin has type void*.
Study C's operator precedences and insert parentheses where necessary.
Point of Information: Internal Padding can really screw this up.
Consider struct { char c[6]; }; -- It has sizeof()=6. But if you had an array of these, each element might be padded out to an 8 byte alignment!
Certain assembly operations don't handle mis-aligned data gracefully. (For example, if an int spans two memory words.) (YES, I have been bitten by this before.)
.
Second: In the past, I've used variably sized arrays. (I was dumb back then...) It works if you are not changing type. (Or if you have a union of the types.)
E.g.:
struct T { int sizeOfArray; int data[1]; };
Allocated as
T * t = (T *) malloc( sizeof(T) + sizeof(int)*(NUMBER-1) );
t->sizeOfArray = NUMBER;
(Though padding/alignment can still screw you up.)
.
Third: Consider:
struct T {
int sizeOfArray;
enum FOO arrayType;
union U { short s; int i; long l; float f; double d; } data [1];
};
It solves problems with knowing how to print out the data.
.
Fourth: You could just pass in the int/long array to your function rather than the structure. E.g:
void printCommonStatistics( int * data, int count )
{
for( int i=0; i<count; i++ )
cout << "FOO: " << data[i] << endl;
}
Invoked via:
_T10CNT foo;
printCommonStatistics( foo._cnt, 20 );
Or:
int a[10], b[20], c[30];
printCommonStatistics( a, 10 );
printCommonStatistics( b, 20 );
printCommonStatistics( c, 30 );
This works much better than hiding data in structs. As you add members to one of your struct's, the layout may change between your struct's and no longer be consistent. (Meaning the address of _cnt relative to the start of the struct may change for _T10CNT and not for _T20CNT. Fun debugging times there. A single struct with a union'ed _cnt payload would avoid this.)
E.g.:
struct FOO {
union {
int bar [10];
long biff [20];
} u;
}
.
Fifth:
If you must use structs... C++, iostreams, and templating would be a lot cleaner to implement.
E.g.:
template<class TYPE> void printCommonStatistics( TYPE & mystruct, int count )
{
for( int i=0; i<count; i++ )
cout << "FOO: " << mystruct._cnt[i] << endl;
} /* Assumes all mystruct's have a "_cnt" member. */
But that's probably not what you are looking for...
C isn't my cup o'java, but I think your problem is that "void *cmncnt" should be CMNCNT *cmncnt.
Feel free to correct me now, C programmers, and tell me this is why java programmers can't have nice things.
This line is kind of tortured, don'tcha think?
CMNCNT *cmncnt = (CMNCNT *)&cmncntin[ii*cmncnt_elmsize];
How about something more like
CMNCNT *cmncnt = ((CMNCNT *)(cmncntin + (ii * cmncnt_elmsize));
Or better yet, if cmncnt_elmsize = sizeof(CMNCNT)
CMNCNT *cmncnt = ((CMNCNT *)cmncntin) + ii;
That should also get rid of the warning, since you are no longer dereferencing a void *.
BTW: I'm not real sure why you are doing it this way, but if cmncnt_elmsize is sometimes not sizeof(CMNCNT), and can in fact vary from call to call, I'd suggest rethinking this design. I suppose there could be a good reason for it, but it looks really shaky to me. I can almost guarantee there is a better way to design things.