10

When using PInvoke, I noticed that we need to use IntPtr to refer to Windows handles. I am wondering why not just use int for the handle? My understanding of a handle is that it is just an integer value.

Ani
  • 103,292
  • 21
  • 241
  • 294
user705414
  • 17,800
  • 36
  • 105
  • 151

4 Answers4

18

A windows handle is defined as an integer of the native machine pointer size. That's so that they can secretly be a pointer if they need to be. (A handle probably is not a pointer, but it is permitted to be one if the operating system implementers deem it necessary. They typically are not actually pointers for security reasons; it makes it too easy for people to abuse the system if they are actually pointers.)

An int in C# defined as a 32 bit integer, which will be too small on a 64 bit machine. An IntPtr is defined as an integer that can hold a pointer of the machine size. That's why you always use IntPtr when interoperating with handles.

Eric Lippert
  • 612,321
  • 166
  • 1,175
  • 2,033
10

Handles are pointer-sized values.

They're 8 bytes wide on 64-bit platforms.

SLaks
  • 800,742
  • 167
  • 1,811
  • 1,896
  • 1
    I'd say "pointer-*sized*" instead of "pointer" (even though I guess in the strict C/C++ sense, that isn't too accurate, since handles are `typedef`'d as a pointer all right, and `size_t` isn't necessarily the size of a pointer)... but if they're indices into a table, chances are they're used as integers. But yeah, point taken. – user541686 Feb 07 '12 at 00:26
4

The size of a handle is dependant on the machine architecture (32/64 bit). IntPtr will take care of that.

Eugen Rieck
  • 60,102
  • 9
  • 66
  • 89
2

A handle is essentially a system level pointer, and a pointer does not implicitly cast to an int. It is a type by itself. So that's why you have IntPtr in .NET to represent the Handle type.

Tony The Lion
  • 57,181
  • 57
  • 223
  • 390