它说“因为它让那些不知道地址是什么的人感到困惑”——而且，这是真的:如果你知道地址是什么，你就不会困惑了。从理论上讲，指针是一个指向另一个变量的变量，实际上保存着一个地址，即它所指向的变量的地址。我不知道为什么要隐瞒这个事实，这又不是什么高深的科学。如果你理解了指针，你就离理解计算机的工作原理更近了一步。去吧!

以下是我过去是如何向一些困惑的人解释的: 指针有两个影响其行为的属性。它有一个值(在典型环境中)是一个内存地址，还有一个类型(告诉您它所指向的对象的类型和大小)。

例如，给定:

union {
    int i;
    char c;
} u;

你可以有三个不同的指针都指向同一个对象:

void *v = &u;
int *i = &u.i;
char *c = &u.c;

如果你比较这些指针的值，它们都是相等的:

v==i && i==c

但是，如果对每个指针加1，就会发现它们所指向的类型变得相关了。

i++;
c++;
// You can't perform arithmetic on a void pointer, so no v++
i != c

此时，变量i和c将具有不同的值，因为i++使i包含下一个可访问的整数的地址，而c++使c指向下一个可寻址的字符。通常，整数比字符占用更多的内存，所以在它们都加一之后，i的值将比c的值更大。

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.

指针是表示内存位置的抽象。请注意，这句话并没有说把指针当作内存地址是错误的，它只是说它“通常会导致悲伤”。换句话说，它会让你产生错误的期望。

The most likely source of grief is certainly pointer arithmetic, which is actually one of C's strengths. If a pointer was an address, you'd expect pointer arithmetic to be address arithmetic; but it's not. For example, adding 10 to an address should give you an address that is larger by 10 addressing units; but adding 10 to a pointer increments it by 10 times the size of the kind of object it points to (and not even the actual size, but rounded up to an alignment boundary). With an int * on an ordinary architecture with 32-bit integers, adding 10 to it would increment it by 40 addressing units (bytes). Experienced C programmers are aware of this and put it to all kinds of good uses, but your author is evidently no fan of sloppy metaphors.

There's the additional question of how the contents of the pointer represent the memory location: As many of the answers have explained, an address is not always an int (or long). In some architectures an address is a "segment" plus an offset. A pointer might even contain just the offset into the current segment ("near" pointer), which by itself is not a unique memory address. And the pointer contents might have only an indirect relationship to a memory address as the hardware understands it. But the author of the quote cited doesn't even mention representation, so I think it was conceptual equivalence, rather than representation, that they had in mind.

指针是一种在C/ c++中本地可用的变量类型，包含一个内存地址。像任何其他变量一样，它有自己的地址并占用内存(数量是特定于平台的)。

由于混淆，您将看到的一个问题是试图通过简单地按值传递指针来更改函数中的引用。这将复制函数作用域内的指针，对这个新指针“指向”的地方的任何更改都不会改变调用该函数的作用域内指针的引用。为了修改函数中的实际指针，通常会将一个指针传递给另一个指针。

C指针非常类似于内存地址，但是抽象了与机器相关的细节，以及一些在低级指令集中找不到的特性。

例如，C指针是相对丰富的类型。如果在一个结构数组中增加一个指针，它会很好地从一个结构跳到另一个结构。

指针服从转换规则，并提供编译时类型检查。

有一个特殊的“空指针”值，它在源代码级别是可移植的，但其表示可能不同。如果将值为0的整型常量赋给指针，则该指针的值为空指针。同样，如果你用这种方式初始化一个指针。

指针可以用作布尔变量:如果指针不是null，则为true;如果指针为null，则为false。

在机器语言中，如果空指针是一个有趣的地址，如0xFFFFFFFF，那么您可能必须对该值进行显式测试。C把它藏起来了。即使空指针是0xFFFFFFFF，你也可以使用if (ptr != 0) {/* not null!* /}。

Uses of pointers which subvert the type system lead to undefined behavior, whereas similar code in machine language might be well defined. Assemblers will assemble the instructions you have written, but C compilers will optimize based on the assumption that you haven't done anything wrong. If a float *p pointer points to a long n variable, and *p = 0.0 is executed, the compiler is not required to handle this. A subsequent use of n will not necessary read the bit pattern of the float value, but perhaps, it will be an optimized access which is based on the "strict aliasing" assumption that n has not been touched! That is, the assumption that the program is well-behaved, and so p should not be pointing at n.

在C语言中，指向代码的指针和指向数据的指针是不同的，但在许多体系结构中，它们的地址是相同的。可以开发具有“胖”指针的C编译器，即使目标体系结构没有。胖指针意味着指针不仅仅是机器地址，还包含其他信息，例如用于边界检查的被指向对象的大小信息。可移植编写的程序将很容易移植到这样的编译器。

所以你可以看到，在机器地址和C指针之间有很多语义上的区别。