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

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.

其他回答

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。

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!

马克·贝西(Mark Bessey)已经说过了,但这一点需要再次强调,直到人们理解为止。

指针与变量的关系比与文字3的关系更大。

指针是一个值(地址)和类型(带有其他属性,如只读)的元组。类型(以及附加参数(如果有的话)可以进一步定义或限制上下文;如。__far ptr, __near ptr:地址的上下文是什么:堆栈,堆,线性地址,某处的偏移量,物理内存或其他。

正是type的属性使得指针算术与整数算术略有不同。

指针不是变量的反例太多了,不容忽视

fopen返回FILE指针。(变量在哪里) 堆栈指针或帧指针通常是不可寻址的寄存器 *(int *)0x1231330 = 13;——将任意整数值转换为pointer_of_integer类型,并在不引入变量的情况下写入/读取整数值

在c程序的生命周期中,会有许多其他没有地址的临时指针实例——因此它们不是变量,而是带有编译时相关类型的表达式/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.

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。