联合允许互斥的数据成员共享相同的内存。当内存比较稀缺时，例如在嵌入式系统中，这是非常重要的。

示例如下:

union {
   int a;
   int b;
   int c;
} myUnion;

这个联合将占用一个int值的空间，而不是3个独立的int值。如果用户设置了a的值，然后设置了b的值，它将覆盖a的值，因为它们都共享相同的内存位置。

工会是伟大的。我所见过的联合的一个聪明用法是在定义事件时使用它们。例如，您可能决定一个事件是32位的。

现在，在这32位中，您可能希望将前8位指定为事件发送方的标识符……有时你要把事件作为一个整体来处理，有时你要剖析它并比较它的组成部分。工会让你可以灵活地做到这两点。

union Event
{
  unsigned long eventCode;
  unsigned char eventParts[4];
};

联合允许互斥的数据成员共享相同的内存。当内存比较稀缺时，例如在嵌入式系统中，这是非常重要的。

示例如下:

union {
   int a;
   int b;
   int c;
} myUnion;

这个联合将占用一个int值的空间，而不是3个独立的int值。如果用户设置了a的值，然后设置了b的值，它将覆盖a的值，因为它们都共享相同的内存位置。

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。

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.