很难想出需要这种灵活结构的特定场合，也许在发送不同大小消息的消息协议中，但即使在这种情况下，也可能有更好、更适合程序员的替代方案。

联合有点像其他语言中的变体类型——它们一次只能保存一个东西，但这个东西可以是int型，浮点型等，这取决于你如何声明它。

例如:

typedef union MyUnion MYUNION;
union MyUnion
{
   int MyInt;
   float MyFloat;
};

MyUnion将只包含一个int或一个float，这取决于你最近设置的。所以这样做:

MYUNION u;
u.MyInt = 10;

U现在持有int = 10;

u.MyFloat = 1.0;

U现在持有一个等于1.0的浮点数。它不再持有int型。显然，如果你尝试printf("MyInt=%d" u.MyInt);那么你可能会得到一个错误，尽管我不确定具体的行为。

联合的大小由其最大字段的大小决定，在本例中为float。

我想说，它可以更容易地重用可能以不同方式使用的内存，即节省内存。例如，你想做一些“变体”结构体，能够保存一个短字符串以及一个数字:

struct variant {
    int type;
    double number;
    char *string;
};

在32位系统中，这将导致每个变体实例至少使用96位或12个字节。

使用联合可以将大小减小到64位或8字节:

struct variant {
    int type;
    union {
        double number;
        char *string;
    } value;
};

如果你想添加更多不同的变量类型，你甚至可以保存更多。这可能是真的，你可以做类似的事情，强制转换一个空指针-但联合使它更容易访问，以及类型安全。这样的节省听起来并不是很大，但是您节省了用于该结构的所有实例的三分之一的内存。

COM接口中使用的VARIANT呢?它有两个字段——“type”和一个包含实际值的联合，该值根据“type”字段进行处理。

联合在嵌入式编程或需要直接访问硬件/内存的情况下特别有用。这里有一个简单的例子:

typedef union
{
    struct {
        unsigned char byte1;
        unsigned char byte2;
        unsigned char byte3;
        unsigned char byte4;
    } bytes;
    unsigned int dword;
} HW_Register;
HW_Register reg;

然后，您可以按如下方式访问reg:

reg.dword = 0x12345678;
reg.bytes.byte3 = 4;

字节顺序和处理器体系结构当然很重要。

另一个有用的特性是位修饰符:

typedef union
{
    struct {
        unsigned char b1:1;
        unsigned char b2:1;
        unsigned char b3:1;
        unsigned char b4:1;
        unsigned char reserved:4;
    } bits;
    unsigned char byte;
} HW_RegisterB;
HW_RegisterB reg;

使用这段代码，您可以直接访问寄存器/内存地址中的单个位:

x = reg.bits.b2;

联合用于节省内存，特别是在内存有限的设备上使用，而内存是很重要的。 经验值:

union _Union{
  int a;
  double b;
  char c;
};

For example,let's say we need the above 3 data types(int,double,char) in a system where memory is limited.If we don't use "union",we need to define these 3 data types. In this case sizeof(a) + sizeof(b) + sizeof(c) memory space will be allocated.But if we use onion,only one memory space will be allocated according to the largest data t ype in these 3 data types.Because all variables in union structure will use the same memory space. Hence the memory space allocated accroding to the largest data type will be common space for all variables. For example:

union _Union{
int a;
double b;
char c;
};

int main() {
 union _Union uni;
 uni.a = 44;
 uni.b = 144.5;
 printf("a:%d\n",uni.a);
 printf("b:%lf\n",uni.b);
 return 0;
 }

输出是: 答:0 和b: 144.500000

为什么a是0 ?因为联合结构只有一个内存区域，而所有数据结构都共同使用它。最后一个赋值覆盖了旧值。 再举一个例子:

 union _Union{
    char name[15];
    int id;
};


int main(){
   union _Union uni;
   char choice;
   printf("YOu can enter name or id value.");
   printf("Do you want to enter the name(y or n):");
   scanf("%c",&choice);
   if(choice == 'Y' || choice == 'y'){
     printf("Enter name:");
     scanf("%s",uni.name);
     printf("\nName:%s",uni.name);
   }else{
     printf("Enter Id:");
     scanf("%d",&uni.id);
     printf("\nId:%d",uni.id);
   }
return 0;
}

注意:联合的大小是其最大字段的大小，因为必须保留足够的字节来存储大尺寸字段。

在C的早期版本中，所有结构声明都共享一组公共字段。考虑到:

struct x {int x_mode; int q; float x_f};
struct y {int y_mode; int q; int y_l};
struct z {int z_mode; char name[20];};

a compiler would essentially produce a table of structures' sizes (and possibly alignments), and a separate table of structures' members' names, types, and offsets. The compiler didn't keep track of which members belonged to which structures, and would allow two structures to have a member with the same name only if the type and offset matched (as with member q of struct x and struct y). If p was a pointer to any structure type, p->q would add the offset of "q" to pointer p and fetch an "int" from the resulting address.

Given the above semantics, it was possible to write a function that could perform some useful operations on multiple kinds of structure interchangeably, provided that all the fields used by the function lined up with useful fields within the structures in question. This was a useful feature, and changing C to validate members used for structure access against the types of the structures in question would have meant losing it in the absence of a means of having a structure that can contain multiple named fields at the same address. Adding "union" types to C helped fill that gap somewhat (though not, IMHO, as well as it should have been).

An essential part of unions' ability to fill that gap was the fact that a pointer to a union member could be converted into a pointer to any union containing that member, and a pointer to any union could be converted to a pointer to any member. While the C89 Standard didn't expressly say that casting a T* directly to a U* was equivalent to casting it to a pointer to any union type containing both T and U, and then casting that to U*, no defined behavior of the latter cast sequence would be affected by the union type used, and the Standard didn't specify any contrary semantics for a direct cast from T to U. Further, in cases where a function received a pointer of unknown origin, the behavior of writing an object via T*, converting the T* to a U*, and then reading the object via U* would be equivalent to writing a union via member of type T and reading as type U, which would be standard-defined in a few cases (e.g. when accessing Common Initial Sequence members) and Implementation-Defined (rather than Undefined) for the rest. While it was rare for programs to exploit the CIS guarantees with actual objects of union type, it was far more common to exploit the fact that pointers to objects of unknown origin had to behave like pointers to union members and have the behavioral guarantees associated therewith.