stackoverflow Can memcpy be used for type punning?

This is a quote from the C11 Standard:

6.5 Expressions ...

6 The effective type of an object for an access to its stored value is the declared type of the object, if any. If a value is stored into an object having no declared type through an lvalue having a type that is not a character type, then the type of the lvalue becomes the effective type of the object for that access and for subsequent accesses that do not modify the stored value. If a value is copied into an object having no declared type using memcpy or memmove, or is copied as an array of character type, then the effective type of the modified object for that access and for subsequent accesses that do not modify the value is the effective type of the object from which the value is copied, if it has one. For all other accesses to an object having no declared type, the effective type of the object is simply the type of the lvalue used for the access.

7 An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue expression that has one of the following types:

— a type compatible with the effective type of the object, — a qualified version of a type compatible with the effective type of the object, — a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to the effective type of the object, — a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to a qualified version of the effective type of the object, — an aggregate or union type that includes one of the aforementioned types among its members (including, recursively, a member of a subaggregate or contained union), or — a character type.

NOTE: 能够准确地将我们的代码翻译为对应的机器指令；不符合标准的代码是可能误导编译器的，导致编译器所编译生成的机器指令是错误的；

Does this imply that memcpy cannot be used for type punning this way:

double d = 1234.5678;
uint64_t bits;
memcpy(&bits, &d, sizeof bits);
printf("the representation of %g is %08"PRIX64"\n", d, bits);

Why would it not give the same output as:

union { double d; uint64_t i; } u;
u.d = 1234.5678;
printf("the representation of %g is %08"PRIX64"\n", d, u.i);

What if I use my version of memcpy using character types:

void *my_memcpy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t n) {
    unsigned char *d = dst;
    const unsigned char *s = src;
    for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) { d[i] = s[i]; }
    return dst;
}

---

EDIT: EOF commented that The part about memcpy() in paragraph 6 doesn't apply in this situation, since uint64_t bits has a declared type. I agree, but, unfortunately, this does not help answer the question whether memcpy can be used for type punning, it just makes paragraph 6 irrelevant to assess the validity of the above examples.

Here here is another attempt at type punning with memcpy that I believe would be covered by paragraph 6:

double d = 1234.5678;
void *p = malloc(sizeof(double));
if (p != NULL) {
    uint64_t *pbits = memcpy(p, &d, sizeof(double));
    uint64_t bits = *pbits;
    printf("the representation of %g is %08"PRIX64"\n", d, bits);
}

Assuming sizeof(double) == sizeof(uint64_t), Does the above code have defined behavior under paragraph 6 and 7?

---

EDIT: Some answers point to the potential for undefined behavior coming from reading a trap representation. This is not relevant as the C Standard explicitly excludes this possibility:

7.20.1.1 Exact-width integer types

1 The typedef name intN_t designates a signed integer type with width N, no padding bits, and a two’s complement representation. Thus, int8_t denotes such a signed integer type with a width of exactly 8 bits.

2 The typedef name uintN_t designates an unsigned integer type with width N and no padding bits. Thus, uint24_t denotes such an unsigned integer type with a width of exactly 24 bits.

These types are optional. However, if an implementation provides integer types with widths of 8, 16, 32, or 64 bits, no padding bits, and (for the signed types) that have a two’s complement representation, it shall define the corresponding typedef names.

Type uint64_t has exactly 64 value bits and no padding bits, thus there cannot be any trap representations.