在关于C的一个有信誉的来源中,在讨论&操作符后给出了以下信息:

... 有点不幸的是,术语[地址的]仍然存在,因为它混淆了那些不知道地址是关于什么的人,并误导了那些知道地址的人:将指针视为地址通常会导致悲伤……

我读过的其他材料(来自同样有名望的来源,我想说)总是毫不掩饰地将指针和&操作符作为内存地址。我很愿意继续寻找事情的真相,但当有信誉的消息来源不同意时,这有点困难。

现在我有点困惑了——如果指针不是内存地址,那么它到底是什么?

P.S.

作者后来说:……不过,我将继续使用“地址”这个术语,因为发明一个不同的(术语)会更糟糕。


当前回答

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。

其他回答

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。

C标准没有在内部定义指针是什么以及它在内部是如何工作的。这样做的目的是为了不限制平台的数量,在这些平台上,C可以作为编译或解释语言实现。

指针值可以是某种ID或句柄,也可以是几个ID的组合(对x86段和偏移量说你好),不一定是真正的内存地址。这个ID可以是任何东西,甚至是固定大小的文本字符串。非地址表示可能对C解释器特别有用。

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。

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。