我不确定你的来源，但你描述的语言类型来自C标准:

6.5.3.2地址和间接操作符 […] 3.一元&操作符产生其操作数的地址。[…]

所以…是的，指针指向内存地址。至少这是C标准所暗示的意思。

更清楚地说，指针是保存某个地址值的变量。对象的地址(可以存储在指针中)使用一元&操作符返回。

我可以将地址“42 Wallaby Way, Sydney”存储在一个变量中(该变量将是某种“指针”，但由于这不是一个内存地址，所以我们不能正确地称之为“指针”)。您的计算机有内存桶的地址。指针存储地址的值(例如，指针存储值“42 Wallaby Way, Sydney”，这是一个地址)。

编辑:我想对Alexey Frunze的评论进行扩展。

指针到底是什么?让我们看看C标准:

6.2.5类型 […] 20.[…] 指针类型可以从函数类型或对象类型派生，称为引用类型。指针类型描述了一个对象，该对象的值提供了对所引用类型实体的引用。从引用类型T派生的指针类型有时称为“指向T的指针”。从引用类型构造指针类型称为“指针类型派生”。指针类型是一个完整的对象类型。

从本质上讲，指针存储一个值，该值提供对某些对象或函数的引用。种。指针用于存储提供对某些对象或函数引用的值，但情况并非总是如此:

6.3.2.3指针 […] 5. 整数可以转换为任何指针类型。除非像前面指定的那样，否则结果是由实现定义的，可能没有正确对齐，可能没有指向引用类型的实体，并且可能是陷阱表示。

The above quote says that we can turn an integer into a pointer. If we do that (that is, if we stuff an integer value into a pointer instead of a specific reference to an object or function), then the pointer "might not point to an entity of reference type" (i.e. it may not provide a reference to an object or function). It might provide us with something else. And this is one place where you might stick some kind of handle or ID in a pointer (i.e. the pointer isn't pointing to an object; it's storing a value that represents something, but that value may not be an address).

是的，正如Alexey Frunze所说，指针可能没有存储对象或函数的地址。有可能一个指针存储的是某种“句柄”或ID，你可以通过给指针赋某个任意整数值来做到这一点。这个句柄或ID表示什么取决于系统/环境/上下文。只要您的系统/实现能够理解这个值，您就处于良好的状态(但这取决于具体的值和具体的系统/实现)。

通常，指针存储对象或函数的地址。如果它没有存储实际的地址(到对象或函数)，则结果是实现定义的(这意味着究竟发生了什么以及指针现在表示什么取决于您的系统和实现，因此它可能是特定系统上的句柄或ID，但在另一个系统上使用相同的代码/值可能会使程序崩溃)。

结果比我想象的要长……

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。

指针只是另一个变量，用来保存内存位置的地址(通常是另一个变量的内存地址)。

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。

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.