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。

在学校里，我是这样使用联合的:

typedef union
{
  unsigned char color[4];
  int       new_color;
}       u_color;

我用它来更容易地处理颜色，而不是使用>>和<<操作符，我只需要遍历我的char数组的不同索引。

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;

联合通常用于整数和浮点数的二进制表示之间的转换:

union
{
  int i;
  float f;
} u;

// Convert floating-point bits to integer:
u.f = 3.14159f;
printf("As integer: %08x\n", u.i);

尽管根据C标准，这在技术上是未定义的行为(您只应该阅读最近编写的字段)，但它将在几乎任何编译器中以定义良好的方式起作用。

联合有时也被用来实现C语言中的伪多态性，通过给一个结构一些标记来指示它包含什么类型的对象，然后将可能的类型联合在一起:

enum Type { INTS, FLOATS, DOUBLE };
struct S
{
  Type s_type;
  union
  {
    int s_ints[2];
    float s_floats[2];
    double s_double;
  };
};

void do_something(struct S *s)
{
  switch(s->s_type)
  {
    case INTS:  // do something with s->s_ints
      break;

    case FLOATS:  // do something with s->s_floats
      break;

    case DOUBLE:  // do something with s->s_double
      break;
  }
}

这使得struct S的大小只有12字节，而不是28字节。

我在为嵌入式设备编码时使用union。我有一个16位的C整数。当我需要从/存储到EEPROM时，我需要检索高8位和低8位。所以我用了这种方法:

union data {
    int data;
    struct {
        unsigned char higher;
        unsigned char lower;
    } parts;
};

它不需要移动，所以代码更容易阅读。

另一方面，我看到一些旧的c++ stl代码使用联合的stl分配器。如果您感兴趣，可以阅读sgi stl源代码。下面是其中的一段:

union _Obj {
    union _Obj* _M_free_list_link;
    char _M_client_data[1];    /* The client sees this.        */
};

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.