当你有一个函数，你返回的值可以不同，这取决于函数做了什么，使用联合。

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。

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。

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。

包含不同记录类型的文件。 包含不同请求类型的网络接口。

看一下这个:X.25缓冲区命令处理

许多可能的X.25命令中的一个被接收到缓冲区中，并通过使用所有可能结构的UNION进行适当的处理。

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.