According to the C++ standard (§9.5.1, cited as well in other answers):
A union can have member functions (including constructors and destructors), but not virtual functions. A union shall not have base classes. A union shall not be used as a base class. An object of a class with a non-trivial constructor, a non-trivial copy-constructor, a non-trivial destructor, or a non-trivial copy assignment operator cannot be a member of a union, nor can an array of such objects. If a union contains a static data member, or a member of a reference type, the program is ill-formed.
I first linked to the Wikipedia article about POD types which states:
A POD type in C++ is defined as either a scalar type or a POD class. POD class has no user-defined copy assignment operator, no user-defined destructor, and no non-static data members that are not themselves PODs. Moreover, POD class must be an aggregate, meaning it has no user-declared constructors, no private nor protected non-static data, no bases and no virtual functions. The standard includes statements about how PODs must behave in C++.
and
In certain contexts, C++ allows only POD types to be used. For example, a union in C++ cannot contain a class that has virtual functions, or nontrivial constructors or destructors. This restriction is imposed because the compiler cannot know which constructor or destructor should be called for a union.
The first sentence of the second paragraph might make you think C++ only allows POD types to be part of a union. This isn't exactly the case as it allows a class with private members to be part of a union:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class test1
{
int i;
};
class test2
{
int i;
};
union test
{
test1 t1;
test2 t2;
};
int main()
{
cout << __is_pod(test1) << endl;
cout << __is_pod(test2) << endl;
cout << __is_pod(test) << endl;
return 0;
}
The program above compiled with MSVC++ prints out:
0
0
1