低级系统编程就是一个合理的例子。

IIRC中，我使用联合将硬件寄存器分解为组件位。因此，您可以访问一个8位寄存器(在我这样做的那天;-)到组件位。

(我忘记了确切的语法，但是……)这种结构将允许控制寄存器作为control_byte或通过单个位来访问。对于给定的字节顺序，确保位映射到正确的寄存器位是很重要的。

typedef union {
    unsigned char control_byte;
    struct {
        unsigned int nibble  : 4;
        unsigned int nmi     : 1;
        unsigned int enabled : 1;
        unsigned int fired   : 1;
        unsigned int control : 1;
    };
} ControlRegister;

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。

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

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。

低级系统编程就是一个合理的例子。

IIRC中，我使用联合将硬件寄存器分解为组件位。因此，您可以访问一个8位寄存器(在我这样做的那天;-)到组件位。

(我忘记了确切的语法，但是……)这种结构将允许控制寄存器作为control_byte或通过单个位来访问。对于给定的字节顺序，确保位映射到正确的寄存器位是很重要的。

typedef union {
    unsigned char control_byte;
    struct {
        unsigned int nibble  : 4;
        unsigned int nmi     : 1;
        unsigned int enabled : 1;
        unsigned int fired   : 1;
        unsigned int control : 1;
    };
} ControlRegister;

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.