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.

许多答案都涉及从一种类型转换到另一种类型。我从具有相同类型的联合中得到最多的使用(即在解析串行数据流时)。它们允许解析/构造一个有框架的包变得很简单。

typedef union
{
    UINT8 buffer[PACKET_SIZE]; // Where the packet size is large enough for
                               // the entire set of fields (including the payload)

    struct
    {
        UINT8 size;
        UINT8 cmd;
        UINT8 payload[PAYLOAD_SIZE];
        UINT8 crc;
    } fields;

}PACKET_T;

// This should be called every time a new byte of data is ready 
// and point to the packet's buffer:
// packet_builder(packet.buffer, new_data);

void packet_builder(UINT8* buffer, UINT8 data)
{
    static UINT8 received_bytes = 0;

    // All range checking etc removed for brevity

    buffer[received_bytes] = data;
    received_bytes++;

    // Using the struc only way adds lots of logic that relates "byte 0" to size
    // "byte 1" to cmd, etc...
}

void packet_handler(PACKET_T* packet)
{
    // Process the fields in a readable manner
    if(packet->fields.size > TOO_BIG)
    {
        // handle error...
    }

    if(packet->fields.cmd == CMD_X)
    {
        // do stuff..
    }
}

编辑 关于字节序和结构填充的评论是有效的，而且非常值得关注。我几乎完全在嵌入式软件中使用了这段代码，其中大部分我都可以控制管道的两端。

我在几个库中看到过它作为面向对象继承的替代品。

E.g.

        Connection
     /       |       \
  Network   USB     VirtualConnection

如果你想让Connection“类”是上面的任何一个，你可以这样写:

struct Connection
{
    int type;
    union
    {
        struct Network network;
        struct USB usb;
        struct Virtual virtual;
    }
};

libinfinity示例:http://git.0x539.de/?p=infinote.git;a=blob;f=libinfinity/common/inf-session.c;h=3e887f0d63bd754c6b5ec232948027cbbf4d61fc;hb=HEAD#l74

当您希望对由硬件、设备或网络协议定义的结构进行建模时，或者当您要创建大量对象并希望节省空间时，可以使用联合。不过，在95%的情况下，你真的不需要它们，坚持使用易于调试的代码。

有很多用法。只需执行grep union /usr/include/*或类似目录。大多数情况下，联合被包装在结构中，结构的一个成员告诉联合中的哪个元素可以访问。例如，为现实生活的实现签出man elf。

这是基本原则:

struct _mydata {
    int which_one;
    union _data {
            int a;
            float b;
            char c;
    } foo;
} bar;

switch (bar.which_one)
{
   case INTEGER  :  /* access bar.foo.a;*/ break;
   case FLOATING :  /* access bar.foo.b;*/ break;
   case CHARACTER:  /* access bar.foo.c;*/ break;
}

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。