A pointer value is an address. A pointer variable is an object that can store an address. This is true because that's what the standard defines a pointer to be. It's important to tell it to C novices because C novices are often unclear on the difference between a pointer and the thing it points to (that is to say, they don't know the difference between an envelope and a building). The notion of an address (every object has an address and that's what a pointer stores) is important because it sorts that out.

然而，标准在特定的抽象层次上进行讨论。作者所说的那些“知道地址是关于什么的”，但对C不熟悉的人，必须在不同的抽象级别上学习地址——也许是通过编写汇编语言。不能保证C实现使用与cpu操作码相同的地址表示(在本文中称为“存储地址”)，这些人已经知道。

He goes on to talk about "perfectly reasonable address manipulation". As far as the C standard is concerned there's basically no such thing as "perfectly reasonable address manipulation". Addition is defined on pointers and that is basically it. Sure, you can convert a pointer to integer, do some bitwise or arithmetic ops, and then convert it back. This is not guaranteed to work by the standard, so before writing that code you'd better know how your particular C implementation represents pointers and performs that conversion. It probably uses the address representation you expect, but it it doesn't that's your fault because you didn't read the manual. That's not confusion, it's incorrect programming procedure ;-)

简而言之，C使用了比作者更抽象的地址概念。

The author's concept of an address of course is also not the lowest-level word on the matter. What with virtual memory maps and physical RAM addressing across multiple chips, the number that you tell the CPU is "the store address" you want to access has basically nothing to do with where the data you want is actually located in hardware. It's all layers of indirection and representation, but the author has chosen one to privilege. If you're going to do that when talking about C, choose the C level to privilege!

Personally I don't think the author's remarks are all that helpful, except in the context of introducing C to assembly programmers. It's certainly not helpful to those coming from higher level languages to say that pointer values aren't addresses. It would be far better to acknowledge the complexity than it is to say that the CPU has the monopoly on saying what an address is and thus that C pointer values "are not" addresses. They are addresses, but they may be written in a different language from the addresses he means. Distinguishing the two things in the context of C as "address" and "store address" would be adequate, I think.

指针是一个保存内存地址的变量，而不是地址本身。但是，您可以解除对指针的引用-并访问内存位置。

例如:

int q = 10; /*say q is at address 0x10203040*/
int *p = &q; /*means let p contain the address of q, which is 0x10203040*/
*p = 20; /*set whatever is at the address pointed by "p" as 20*/

就是这样。就是这么简单。

一个演示我所说内容的程序，其输出如下:

http://ideone.com/rcSUsb

程序:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
  /* POINTER AS AN ADDRESS */
  int q = 10;
  int *p = &q;

  printf("address of q is %p\n", (void *)&q);
  printf("p contains %p\n", (void *)p);

  p = NULL;
  printf("NULL p now contains %p\n", (void *)p);
  return 0;
}

简短的总结 (我也会把它放在顶部):

将指针视为地址通常是一个很好的学习工具，并且通常是普通数据类型指针的实际实现。

(1)但是在许多，也许是大多数编译器上，指向函数的指针不是地址，而是比地址大(通常是2倍，有时更多)，或者实际上是指向内存中结构体的指针，而不是包含函数地址和常量池之类的东西。

(2)指向数据成员的指针和指向方法的指针通常更奇怪。

(3)遗留的x86代码的FAR和NEAR指针问题

(4)几个例子，最著名的是IBM AS/400，具有安全的“胖指针”。

我相信你能找到更多。

细节:

UMMPPHHH ! !到目前为止，许多答案都是相当典型的“程序员菜鸟”答案——但不是编译器菜鸟或硬件菜鸟。因为我假装是一个硬件弱项，并且经常与编译器弱项一起工作，让我抛出我的意见:

在许多(可能是大多数)C编译器中，指向类型为T的数据的指针实际上是T的地址。

很好。

但是，即使在许多这样的编译器上，某些指针也不是地址。你可以通过sizeof(ThePointer)来判断。

For example, pointers to functions are sometimes quite a lot bigger than ordinary addresses. Or, they may involve a level of indirection. This article provides one description, involving the Intel Itanium processor, but I have seen others. Typically, to call a function you must know not only the address of the function code, but also the address of the function's constant pool - a region of memory from which constants are loaded with a single load instruction, rather than the compiler having to generate a 64 bit constant out of several Load Immediate and Shift and OR instructions. So, rather than a single 64 bit address, you need 2 64 bit addresses. Some ABIs (Application Binary Interfaces) move this around as 128 bits, whereas others use a level of indirection, with the function pointer actually being the address of a function descriptor that contains the 2 actual addresses just mentioned. Which is better? Depends on your point of view: performance, code size, and some compatibility issues - often code assumes that a pointer can be cast to a long or a long long, but may also assume that the long long is exactly 64 bits. Such code may not be standards compliant, but nevertheless customers may want it to work.

我们中的许多人都对旧的英特尔x86分段架构有痛苦的记忆，有NEAR指针和FAR指针。值得庆幸的是，这些几乎已经灭绝了，所以只有一个快速的总结:在16位实模式中，实际的线性地址是

LinearAddress = SegmentRegister[SegNum].base << 4 + Offset

而在保护模式下，它可能是

LinearAddress = SegmentRegister[SegNum].base + offset

with the resulting address being checked against a limit set in the segment. Some programs used not really standard C/C++ FAR and NEAR pointer declarations, but many just said *T --- but there were compiler and linker switches so, for example, code pointers might be near pointers, just a 32 bit offset against whatever is in the CS (Code Segment) register, while the data pointers might be FAR pointers, specifying both a 16 bit segment number and a 32 bit offset for a 48 bit value. Now, both of these quantities are certainly related to the address, but since they aren't the same size, which of them is the address? Moreover, the segments also carried permissions - read-only, read-write, executable - in addition to stuff related to the actual address.

A more interesting example, IMHO, is (or, perhaps, was) the IBM AS/400 family. This computer was one of the first to implement an OS in C++. Pointers on this machime were typically 2X the actual address size - e.g. as this presentation says, 128 bit pointers, but the actual addresses were 48-64 bits, and, again, some extra info, what is called a capability, that provided permissions such as read, write, as well as a limit to prevent buffer overflow. Yes: you can do this compatibly with C/C++ -- and if this were ubiquitous, the Chinese PLA and slavic mafia would not be hacking into so many Western computer systems. But historically most C/C++ programming has neglected security for performance. Most interestingly, the AS400 family allowed the operating system to create secure pointers, that could be given to unprivileged code, but which the unprivileged code could not forge or tamper with. Again, security, and while standards compliant, much sloppy non-standards compliant C/C++ code will not work in such a secure system. Again, there are official standards, and there are de-facto standards.

现在，我将放下我的安全演讲，并提到指针(各种类型)通常不是真正地址的其他一些方式:指向数据成员的指针，指向成员函数方法的指针，以及它们的静态版本比普通地址更大。正如这篇文章所说:

有许多方法可以解决这个问题[与单继承和多继承以及虚拟继承有关的问题]。Visual Studio编译器决定如何处理它:指向多重继承类的成员函数的指针实际上是一个结构。” 他们接着说:“强制转换函数指针可以改变它的大小!”

从我对安全性的评论中，您可能会猜到，我曾经参与过C/ c++硬件/软件项目，在这些项目中，指针更像是一种能力，而不是原始地址。

我还可以继续，但我希望你们能明白。

简短的总结 (我也会把它放在顶部):

(0)将指针视为地址通常是一个很好的学习工具，并且通常是普通数据类型指针的实际实现。

(1)但是在许多，也许是大多数编译器上，指向函数的指针不是地址，而是比地址大(通常是2X，有时更多)，或者实际上是指向内存中结构体的指针，而不是包含函数地址和常量池之类的东西。

(2)指向数据成员的指针和指向方法的指针通常更奇怪。

(3)遗留的x86代码的FAR和NEAR指针问题

(4)几个例子，最著名的是IBM AS/400，具有安全的“胖指针”。

我相信你能找到更多。

简单地说，指针实际上是分割机制的偏移部分，分割后转换为线性地址，分页后转换为物理地址。物理地址实际上是从ram中寻址的。

       Selector  +--------------+         +-----------+
      ---------->|              |         |           |
                 | Segmentation | ------->|  Paging   |
        Offset   |  Mechanism   |         | Mechanism |
      ---------->|              |         |           |
                 +--------------+         +-----------+
        Virtual                   Linear                Physical

C或c++指针与简单内存地址的另一个不同之处是，我在其他答案中没有看到不同的指针类型(尽管考虑到它们的总大小，我可能忽略了它)。但它可能是最重要的一个，因为即使是经验丰富的C/ c++程序员也会被它绊倒:

编译器可能会假设不兼容类型的指针不指向相同的地址，即使它们很明显指向相同的地址，这可能会导致简单的pointer==address模型不可能出现的行为。考虑以下代码(假设sizeof(int) = 2*sizeof(short)):

unsigned int i = 0;
unsigned short* p = (unsigned short*)&i;
p[0]=p[1]=1;

if (i == 2 + (unsigned short)(-1))
{
  // you'd expect this to execute, but it need not
}

if (i == 0)
{
  // you'd expect this not to execute, but it actually may do so
}

注意，char*有一个例外，所以使用char*操作值是可能的(尽管不是很可移植)。

地址用于标识一个固定大小的存储空间，通常为每个字节，作为一个整数。这被精确地称为字节地址，它也被ISO c使用。可以有一些其他方法来构造地址，例如为每一位。然而，只有字节地址是如此经常使用，我们通常省略“字节”。

从技术上讲，一个地址在C中从来都不是一个值，因为在(ISO) C中术语“值”的定义是:

对象的内容在解释为具有特定类型时的精确含义

(我强调了一下。)然而，在C语言中没有这样的“地址类型”。

指针不一样。指针是C语言中的一种类型。有几种不同的指针类型。它们不一定遵守相同的语言规则集，例如++对int*类型值和char*类型值的影响。

C语言中的值可以是指针类型。这叫做指针值。需要明确的是，指针值在C语言中不是指针。但是我们习惯把它们混在一起，因为在C语言中，它不太可能是模棱两可的:如果我们把表达式p称为“指针”，它只是一个指针值，而不是一个类型，因为C语言中的命名类型不是由表达式表示，而是由type-name或typedef-name表示。

其他一些事情是微妙的。作为C语言的使用者，首先要知道object是什么意思:

数据存储在执行环境中的区域，其中的内容可以表示 值

对象是表示特定类型的值的实体。指针是一种对象类型。因此，如果我们声明int* p;，则p表示“指针类型的对象”，或“指针对象”。

Note there is no "variable" normatively defined by the standard (in fact it is never being used as a noun by ISO C in normative text). However, informally, we call an object a variable, as some other language does. (But still not so exactly, e.g. in C++ a variable can be of reference type normatively, which is not an object.) The phrases "pointer object" or "pointer variable" are sometimes treated like "pointer value" as above, with a probable slight difference. (One more set of examples is "array".)

由于指针是一种类型，而地址在C语言中实际上是“无类型的”，因此指针值大致“包含”一个地址。指针类型的表达式可以产生一个地址，例如。

Iso c11 6.5.2.3

一元&操作符产生其操作数的地址。

请注意，这个措辞是由WG14/N1256引入的，即ISO C99:TC3。在C99中有

一元&操作符返回其操作数的地址。

它反映了委员会的观点:地址不是由一元操作符&返回的指针值。

尽管有上述措辞，但即使在标准上也存在一些混乱。

Iso c11 6.6

地址常量是一个空指针，一个指向左值的指针，该左值指定一个static对象 存储持续时间，或指向函数指示符的指针

Iso c++ 11 5.19

3.一个地址 常量表达式是指针类型的prvalue核心常量表达式，计算结果为对象的地址 具有静态存储持续时间的对象，转换为函数的地址、空指针值或prvalue核心 类型std::nullptr_t. ...的常量表达式

(最近的c++标准草案使用了另一种措辞，所以不存在这个问题。)

实际上，C中的“地址常量”和c++中的“地址常量表达式”都是指针类型的常量表达式(或者至少从c++ 11开始是“类指针”类型)。

内置的一元&运算符在C和c++中被称为“address-of”;类似地，std::addressof是在c++ 11中引入的。

这些命名可能会带来误解。结果表达式是指针类型的，所以它们被解释为:结果包含/产生一个地址，而不是一个地址。