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。

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。

快速总结:C地址是一个值，通常表示为具有特定类型的机器级内存地址。

非限定词“指针”有歧义。C语言有指针对象(变量)、指针类型、指针表达式和指针值。

使用“指针”这个词来表示“指针对象”是非常常见的，这可能会导致一些混淆——这就是为什么我试图将“指针”作为形容词而不是名词使用。

C标准，至少在某些情况下，使用“指针”这个词来表示“指针值”。例如，malloc的描述说它“返回空指针或指向已分配空间的指针”。

那么C中的地址是什么呢?它是一个指针值，即某个特定指针类型的值。(除了空指针值不一定被称为“地址”，因为它不是任何东西的地址)。

标准对一元&操作符的描述说它“产生其操作数的地址”。在C标准之外，单词“address”通常用于指(物理或虚拟)内存地址，通常是一个单词大小(无论给定系统上的“word”是什么)。

C“地址”通常实现为机器地址——就像C int值通常实现为机器字一样。但是C地址(指针值)不仅仅是一个机器地址。它是一个通常表示为机器地址的值，它是一个具有特定类型的值。

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

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)。

A pointer, like any other variable in C, is fundamentally a collection of bits which may be represented by one or more concatenated unsigned char values (as with any other type of cariable, sizeof(some_variable) will indicate the number of unsigned char values). What makes a pointer different from other variables is that a C compiler will interpret the bits in a pointer as identifying, somehow, a place where a variable may be stored. In C, unlike some other languages, it is possible to request space for multiple variables, and then convert a pointer to any value in that set into a pointer to any other variable within that set.

Many compilers implement pointers by using their bits store actual machine addresses, but that is not the only possible implementation. An implementation could keep one array--not accessible to user code--listing the hardware address and allocated size of all of the memory objects (sets of variables) which a program was using, and have each pointer contain an index into an array along with an offset from that index. Such a design would allow a system to not only restrict code to only operating upon memory that it owned, but also ensure that a pointer to one memory item could not be accidentally converted into a pointer to another memory item (in a system that uses hardware addresses, if foo and bar are arrays of 10 items that are stored consecutively in memory, a pointer to the "eleventh" item of foo might instead point to the first item of bar, but in a system where each "pointer" is an object ID and an offset, the system could trap if code tried to index a pointer to foo beyond its allocated range). It would also be possible for such a system to eliminate memory-fragmentation problems, since the physical addresses associated with any pointers could be moved around.

Note that while pointers are somewhat abstract, they're not quite abstract enough to allow a fully-standards-compliant C compiler to implement a garbage collector. The C compiler specifies that every variable, including pointers, is represented as a sequence of unsigned char values. Given any variable, one can decompose it into a sequence of numbers and later convert that sequence of numbers back into a variable of the original type. Consequently, it would be possible for a program to calloc some storage (receiving a pointer to it), store something there, decompose the pointer into a series of bytes, display those on the screen, and then erase all reference to them. If the program then accepted some numbers from the keyboard, reconstituted those to a pointer, and then tried to read data from that pointer, and if user entered the same numbers that the program had earlier displayed, the program would be required to output the data that had been stored in the calloc'ed memory. Since there is no conceivable way the computer could know whether the user had made a copy of the numbers that were displayed, there would be no conceivable may the computer could know whether the aforementioned memory might ever be accessed in future.