你是对的，是理智的。通常，指针只是一个地址，因此您可以将其强制转换为整数并进行任何算术运算。

但有时指针只是地址的一部分。在一些体系结构上，指针被转换为一个增加了基数的地址或使用另一个CPU寄存器。

但是现在，在PC和ARM架构上，使用平面内存模型和原生编译的C语言，可以认为指针是指向一维可寻址RAM中某个位置的整数地址。

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.

把指针看作地址是一种近似。像所有的近似值一样，它有时足够有用，但也不准确，这意味着依赖它会带来麻烦。

指针就像一个地址，它指出在哪里可以找到一个对象。这种类比的一个直接限制是，并非所有指针都实际包含地址。NULL是一个指针，它不是地址。指针变量的内容实际上可以是以下三种类型之一:

对象的地址，可以被解引用(如果p包含x的地址，则表达式*p与x的值相同); 一个空指针，null是一个例子; 无效内容，不指向对象(如果p不持有有效值，则*p可以做任何事情(“未定义行为”)，导致程序崩溃是相当常见的可能性)。

此外，更准确的说法是，一个指针(如果有效且非空)包含一个地址:指针指出在哪里可以找到一个对象，但还有更多与之相关的信息。

In particular, a pointer has a type. On most platforms, the type of the pointer has no influence at runtime, but it has an influence that goes beyond the type at compile time. If p is a pointer to int (int *p;), then p + 1 points to an integer which is sizeof(int) bytes after p (assuming p + 1 is still a valid pointer). If q is a pointer to char that points to the same address as p (char *q = p;), then q + 1 is not the same address as p + 1. If you think of pointer as addresses, it is not very intuitive that the “next address” is different for different pointers to the same location.

It is possible in some environments to have multiple pointer values with different representations (different bit patterns in memory) that point to the same location in memory. You can think of these as different pointers holding the same address, or as different addresses for the same location — the metaphor isn't clear in this case. The == operator always tells you whether the two operands are pointing to the same location, so on these environments you can have p == q even though p and q have different bit patterns.

甚至在某些环境中，指针携带除地址以外的其他信息，例如类型或权限信息。作为一名程序员，你很容易在生活中不会遇到这些问题。

在某些环境中，不同类型的指针具有不同的表示形式。你可以把它想象成不同类型的地址有不同的表示。例如，一些体系结构有字节指针和字指针，或者对象指针和函数指针。

总而言之，只要记住这一点，将指针视为地址并不太糟糕

它只有有效的，非空的地址指针; 同一个位置可以有多个地址; 你不能对地址进行算术运算，地址上也没有顺序; 指针还携带类型信息。

反过来就麻烦多了。并不是所有看起来像地址的东西都可以是指针。在深层的某个地方，任何指针都表示为可以作为整数读取的位模式，并且您可以说这个整数是一个地址。但反过来说，不是每个整数都是指针。

首先有一些众所周知的限制;例如，在程序地址空间之外指定位置的整数不能是有效指针。未对齐的地址不能为需要对齐的数据类型创建有效指针;例如，在int需要4字节对齐的平台上，0x7654321不能是有效的int*值。

然而，它远远不止于此，因为当您将指针设置为整数时，您就会遇到很多麻烦。这个问题的很大一部分是优化编译器在微优化方面比大多数程序员预期的要好得多，因此他们对程序如何工作的思维模型是严重错误的。仅仅因为指针具有相同的地址并不意味着它们是等价的。例如，考虑下面的代码片段:

unsigned int x = 0;
unsigned short *p = (unsigned short*)&x;
p[0] = 1;
printf("%u = %u\n", x, *p);

您可能会期望，在sizeof(int)==4和sizeof(short)==2的普通机器上，这要么打印1 = 1?(little-endian)还是65536 = 1?(大端)。但在我的64位Linux PC上，GCC 4.4:

$ c99 -O2 -Wall a.c && ./a.out 
a.c: In function ‘main’:
a.c:6: warning: dereferencing pointer ‘p’ does break strict-aliasing rules
a.c:5: note: initialized from here
0 = 1?

在这个简单的例子中，GCC会提醒我们哪里出了问题——在更复杂的例子中，编译器可能不会注意到。由于p与&x的类型不同，改变p指向的对象不会影响&x指向的对象(除了一些定义良好的异常)。因此，编译器可以自由地将x的值保存在寄存器中，而不会在*p更改时更新该寄存器。程序解引用两个指向相同地址的指针，得到两个不同的值!

The moral of this example is that thinking of a (non-null valid) pointer as an address is fine, as long as you stay within the precise rules of the C language. The flip side of the coin is that the rules of the C language are intricate, and difficult to get an intuitive feeling for unless you know what happens under the hood. And what happens under the hood is that the tie between pointers and addresses is somewhat loose, both to support “exotic” processor architectures and to support optimizing compilers.

因此，可以将指针作为地址作为理解的第一步，但不要过于遵循这种直觉。

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。

很难确切地说出这些书的作者到底是什么意思。指针是否包含地址取决于如何定义地址和如何定义指针。

从所有的回答来看，有些人认为(1)地址必须是整数，(2)指针不需要是虚的，因为规范中没有这么说。根据这些假设，显然指针不一定包含地址。

然而，我们看到，虽然(2)可能是真的，(1)可能不一定是真的。根据@ corn秸秆的答案，&被称为操作符的地址，这是怎么回事?这是否意味着规范的作者希望指针包含地址?

我们可以说，指针包含一个地址，但地址不一定是整数?也许吧。

我认为所有这些都是废话连篇的迂腐语义学。实际上，这是毫无价值的。你能想到一个编译器以这样的方式生成代码，指针的值不是一个地址吗?如果有，是什么?我也是这么想的……

我认为这本书的作者(第一个摘录声称指针不一定只是地址)可能指的是指针自带固有类型信息这一事实。

例如,

 int x;
 int* y = &x;
 char* z = &x;

y和z都是指针，但y+1和z+1是不同的。如果它们是内存地址，难道这些表达式不会给你相同的值吗?

在这里，把指针当作地址的想法通常会导致悲伤。之所以会出现bug，是因为人们将指针视为地址，而这通常会导致不幸。

55555可能不是指针，尽管它可能是一个地址，但(int*)55555是一个指针。55555+1 = 55556，但是(int*)55555+1是55559(在sizeof(int)方面的+/-差异)。