假设我想将 A* 转换为 char* 反之亦然，我们有两个选择(我的意思是，我们中的许多人认为我们有两个选择，因为两者似乎都有效！因此混乱！):
Say I want to cast A* to char* and vice-versa, we have two choices (I mean, many of us think we've two choices, because both seems to work! Hence the confusion!):
struct A
{
int age;
char name[128];
};
A a;
char *buffer = static_cast<char*>(static_cast<void*>(&a)); //choice 1
char *buffer = reinterpret_cast<char*>(&a); //choice 2
两者都工作正常.
//convert back
A *pA = static_cast<A*>(static_cast<void*>(buffer)); //choice 1
A *pA = reinterpret_cast<A*>(buffer); //choice 2
即使这样也能正常工作！
Even this works fine!
那么当两个链式 static_cast 可以完成它的工作时，为什么我们在 C++ 中有 reinterpret_cast ?
So why do we have reinterpret_cast in C++ when two chained static_cast can do its job?
你们中的一些人可能认为这个主题是之前的主题的重复，例如在这篇文章的底部列出，但事实并非如此.这些主题只是理论上讨论，但他们都没有给出一个例子来说明为什么确实需要reintepret_cast，以及两个 static_cast 会肯定失败.我同意，一个 static_cast 会失败.但是两个呢?
Some of you might think this topic is a duplicate of the previous topics such as listed at the bottom of this post, but it's not. Those topics discuss only theoretically, but none of them gives even a single example demonstrating why reintepret_cast is really needed, and two static_cast would surely fail. I agree, one static_cast would fail. But how about two?
如果两个链式static_cast的语法看起来很麻烦，那么我们可以编写一个函数模板，让它对程序员更友好:
If the syntax of two chained static_cast looks cumbersome, then we can write a function template to make it more programmer-friendly:
template<class To, class From>
To any_cast(From v)
{
return static_cast<To>(static_cast<void*>(v));
}
然后我们可以这样使用:
And then we can use this, as:
char *buffer = any_cast<char*>(&a); //choice 1
char *buffer = reinterpret_cast<char*>(&a); //choice 2
//convert back
A *pA = any_cast<A*>(buffer); //choice 1
A *pA = reinterpret_cast<A*>(buffer); //choice 2
此外，请参阅 any_cast 可能有用的这种情况:fstream 读写成员函数的正确转换.
Also, see this situation where any_cast can be useful: Proper casting for fstream read and write member functions.
所以我的问题基本上是，
So my question basically is,
reinterpret_cast?static_cast 肯定无法完成相同的工作?reinterpret_cast in C++?static_cast would surely fail to do the same job?有些事情 reinterpret_cast 可以做到而 static_cast 的序列无法做到(全部来自 C++03 5.2.10):
There are things that reinterpret_cast can do that no sequence of static_casts can do (all from C++03 5.2.10):
指针可以显式转换为任何足够大的整数类型以容纳它.
A pointer can be explicitly converted to any integral type large enough to hold it.
整数类型或枚举类型的值可以显式转换为指针.
A value of integral type or enumeration type can be explicitly converted to a pointer.
指向函数的指针可以显式转换为指向不同类型函数的指针.
A pointer to a function can be explicitly converted to a pointer to a function of a different type.
类型为 T1 的指向 X 成员的指针"类型的右值可以显式转换为指向 X 成员的指针"类型的右值>Y of type T2" 如果 T1 和 T2 都是函数类型或都是对象类型.
An rvalue of type "pointer to member of X of type T1" can be explicitly converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to member of Y of type T2" if T1 and T2 are both function types or both object types.
此外，来自 C++03 9.2/17:
Also, from C++03 9.2/17:
reinterpret_cast 适当转换，指向它的初始成员(或者如果该成员是位域，则指向它所在的单元)反之亦然.reinterpret_cast, points to its initial member (or if that member is a bit-field, then to the unit in which it resides) and vice versa. 这篇关于当两个链接的 static_cast 可以完成它的工作时，为什么我们在 C++ 中有 reinterpret_cast ?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持跟版网！