pointer vs handles in C (are the terms used to convey separate things?)

Question

Recently, I read a white paper by an individual who refers to a pointer to a struct as a handle. The author was clearly someone who had written C code on the windows platform previously. Googling indicates that windows programmers interact with system components via handles. I am wondering if it is common practice for windows programmers to refer to all struct pointers as handles? Or is the term handle meant to convey something beyond pointer to struct? I am asking as a linux C programmer.

The white paper I am referring to is: Duff, Heroux, and Pozo. An Overview of the Sparse Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms: The New Standard from the BLAS Technical Forum. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol 28, No. 2, June 2002, Pages 239-267.

Answer 1

The term handle generally means some opaque value that has meaning only to the API which produced it. In Win32, the HANDLE type is either a pointer in kernel memory (which applications cannot access anyway) or an index into some kernel-internal array.

Answer 2

A handle is an old and revered concept.

A cookie is much the same thing. Or a GUID. Or a ticket to retrieve your car from a car park, or your coat from a fancy restaurant, etc.

Its any unique value that when presented back to the issuer can be used to track back to the actual thing referred, by whatever opaque mechanism the issuer wants. You may or may not know anything about that process, nor what the underlying thing is, exactly (only conceptually).

It was heavily used by Windows, but it is certainly not unique to Windows.

You would not normally use "handle" to mean "pointer to struct." Handle is more like "token" than like "pointer." It refers to something - file, system resource, memory, state-snapshot, etc. But what-exactly-it-is is based on the context of the handle itself (i.e. who issued the handle).

Handles were also used heavily in early filesystem programming in K&R C.

Answer 3

I use the word handle to mean a pointer that points to an "object" that represents a resource - often an OS resource, whereas a pointer just points to some memory. If you have a handle to something, you shouldn't try to read and write bytes into it directly, but manipulate it through provided methods.

Often handles are implemented as an opaque void *, which is further encouragement not to try to directly dereference it.

Answer 4

Since you refer to handles being used as a pointer to a structure, as used by a Windows programmer, I'll answer within that context. Please note that there are clearly many different kinds of "handles", as it is a generic concept widely used within the computing environment. Certainly you will be familiar with the concept of a file handle; Windows also offers window handles and many other kinds of handles. Having said that:

A "memory handle" (that is similar to a pointer to a struct) is a concept from the land of 16-bit Windows programming, where there was no memory manager in the CPU and all memory management had to be done in software. Essentially, a "handle" was sort of a pointer, but the OS would be free to move around the memory that the handle referred to. You can't do that with a regular pointer, but the handle had functions that would get and release the actual memory address.

With the introduction of Win32, where the CPU had a hardware memory manager, the concept of the memory handle became obsolete. Other types of handles such as file handles and window handles still exist in Win32, but are not pointers to structs.