地址用于标识一个固定大小的存储空间，通常为每个字节，作为一个整数。这被精确地称为字节地址，它也被ISO c使用。可以有一些其他方法来构造地址，例如为每一位。然而，只有字节地址是如此经常使用，我们通常省略“字节”。

从技术上讲，一个地址在C中从来都不是一个值，因为在(ISO) C中术语“值”的定义是:

对象的内容在解释为具有特定类型时的精确含义

(我强调了一下。)然而，在C语言中没有这样的“地址类型”。

指针不一样。指针是C语言中的一种类型。有几种不同的指针类型。它们不一定遵守相同的语言规则集，例如++对int*类型值和char*类型值的影响。

C语言中的值可以是指针类型。这叫做指针值。需要明确的是，指针值在C语言中不是指针。但是我们习惯把它们混在一起，因为在C语言中，它不太可能是模棱两可的:如果我们把表达式p称为“指针”，它只是一个指针值，而不是一个类型，因为C语言中的命名类型不是由表达式表示，而是由type-name或typedef-name表示。

其他一些事情是微妙的。作为C语言的使用者，首先要知道object是什么意思:

数据存储在执行环境中的区域，其中的内容可以表示 值

对象是表示特定类型的值的实体。指针是一种对象类型。因此，如果我们声明int* p;，则p表示“指针类型的对象”，或“指针对象”。

Note there is no "variable" normatively defined by the standard (in fact it is never being used as a noun by ISO C in normative text). However, informally, we call an object a variable, as some other language does. (But still not so exactly, e.g. in C++ a variable can be of reference type normatively, which is not an object.) The phrases "pointer object" or "pointer variable" are sometimes treated like "pointer value" as above, with a probable slight difference. (One more set of examples is "array".)

由于指针是一种类型，而地址在C语言中实际上是“无类型的”，因此指针值大致“包含”一个地址。指针类型的表达式可以产生一个地址，例如。

Iso c11 6.5.2.3

一元&操作符产生其操作数的地址。

请注意，这个措辞是由WG14/N1256引入的，即ISO C99:TC3。在C99中有

一元&操作符返回其操作数的地址。

它反映了委员会的观点:地址不是由一元操作符&返回的指针值。

尽管有上述措辞，但即使在标准上也存在一些混乱。

Iso c11 6.6

地址常量是一个空指针，一个指向左值的指针，该左值指定一个static对象 存储持续时间，或指向函数指示符的指针

Iso c++ 11 5.19

3.一个地址 常量表达式是指针类型的prvalue核心常量表达式，计算结果为对象的地址 具有静态存储持续时间的对象，转换为函数的地址、空指针值或prvalue核心 类型std::nullptr_t. ...的常量表达式

(最近的c++标准草案使用了另一种措辞，所以不存在这个问题。)

实际上，C中的“地址常量”和c++中的“地址常量表达式”都是指针类型的常量表达式(或者至少从c++ 11开始是“类指针”类型)。

内置的一元&运算符在C和c++中被称为“address-of”;类似地，std::addressof是在c++ 11中引入的。

这些命名可能会带来误解。结果表达式是指针类型的，所以它们被解释为:结果包含/产生一个地址，而不是一个地址。

地址用于标识一个固定大小的存储空间，通常为每个字节，作为一个整数。这被精确地称为字节地址，它也被ISO c使用。可以有一些其他方法来构造地址，例如为每一位。然而，只有字节地址是如此经常使用，我们通常省略“字节”。

从技术上讲，一个地址在C中从来都不是一个值，因为在(ISO) C中术语“值”的定义是:

对象的内容在解释为具有特定类型时的精确含义

(我强调了一下。)然而，在C语言中没有这样的“地址类型”。

指针不一样。指针是C语言中的一种类型。有几种不同的指针类型。它们不一定遵守相同的语言规则集，例如++对int*类型值和char*类型值的影响。

C语言中的值可以是指针类型。这叫做指针值。需要明确的是，指针值在C语言中不是指针。但是我们习惯把它们混在一起，因为在C语言中，它不太可能是模棱两可的:如果我们把表达式p称为“指针”，它只是一个指针值，而不是一个类型，因为C语言中的命名类型不是由表达式表示，而是由type-name或typedef-name表示。

其他一些事情是微妙的。作为C语言的使用者，首先要知道object是什么意思:

数据存储在执行环境中的区域，其中的内容可以表示 值

对象是表示特定类型的值的实体。指针是一种对象类型。因此，如果我们声明int* p;，则p表示“指针类型的对象”，或“指针对象”。

Note there is no "variable" normatively defined by the standard (in fact it is never being used as a noun by ISO C in normative text). However, informally, we call an object a variable, as some other language does. (But still not so exactly, e.g. in C++ a variable can be of reference type normatively, which is not an object.) The phrases "pointer object" or "pointer variable" are sometimes treated like "pointer value" as above, with a probable slight difference. (One more set of examples is "array".)

由于指针是一种类型，而地址在C语言中实际上是“无类型的”，因此指针值大致“包含”一个地址。指针类型的表达式可以产生一个地址，例如。

Iso c11 6.5.2.3

一元&操作符产生其操作数的地址。

请注意，这个措辞是由WG14/N1256引入的，即ISO C99:TC3。在C99中有

一元&操作符返回其操作数的地址。

它反映了委员会的观点:地址不是由一元操作符&返回的指针值。

尽管有上述措辞，但即使在标准上也存在一些混乱。

Iso c11 6.6

地址常量是一个空指针，一个指向左值的指针，该左值指定一个static对象 存储持续时间，或指向函数指示符的指针

Iso c++ 11 5.19

3.一个地址 常量表达式是指针类型的prvalue核心常量表达式，计算结果为对象的地址 具有静态存储持续时间的对象，转换为函数的地址、空指针值或prvalue核心 类型std::nullptr_t. ...的常量表达式

(最近的c++标准草案使用了另一种措辞，所以不存在这个问题。)

实际上，C中的“地址常量”和c++中的“地址常量表达式”都是指针类型的常量表达式(或者至少从c++ 11开始是“类指针”类型)。

内置的一元&运算符在C和c++中被称为“address-of”;类似地，std::addressof是在c++ 11中引入的。

这些命名可能会带来误解。结果表达式是指针类型的，所以它们被解释为:结果包含/产生一个地址，而不是一个地址。

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)。

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.