在Linux:在Kernel Trap的内核代码中使用goto，有一个与Linus Torvalds和一个“新人”关于在Linux代码中使用goto的讨论。有一些非常好的观点，莱纳斯穿着平常的傲慢:)

一些段落:

莱纳斯:不，你被洗脑了 国安局的人认为尼克劳斯 Wirth其实知道自己是什么 说什么。他没有。他不 我有个该死的线索。”

-

莱纳斯:“我觉得goto很好，而且 它们通常比 大量的压痕。”

-

莱纳斯:“当然，用愚蠢的语言 就像帕斯卡，在那里标签不能 描述性的，后去可能很糟糕。”

我只记得用过一次goto。我有一系列五个嵌套计数循环，我需要能够根据某些条件从内部打破整个结构:

    for{
      for{
        for{
          for{
            for{
              if(stuff){
                GOTO ENDOFLOOPS;
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
    
    ENDOFLOOPS:

我可以很容易地声明一个布尔中断变量，并将其用作每个循环的条件的一部分，但在这种情况下，我认为GOTO是一样实用和一样可读的。

没有迅猛龙攻击我。

如果GOTO本身是邪恶的，那么编译器也是邪恶的，因为它们生成jmp。如果跳转到代码块，特别是跟随一个指针，在本质上是邪恶的，那么RETurn指令就是邪恶的。相反，邪恶在于滥用的可能性。

有时我不得不编写应用程序，必须跟踪许多对象，其中每个对象必须遵循复杂的状态序列来响应事件，但整个事情绝对是单线程的。一个典型的状态序列，如果用伪代码表示，将是:

request something
wait for it to be done
while some condition
    request something
    wait for it
    if one response
        while another condition
            request something
            wait for it
            do something
        endwhile
        request one more thing
        wait for it
    else if some other response
        ... some other similar sequence ...
    ... etc, etc.
endwhile

我相信这不是新的，但我在C(++)中处理它的方式是定义一些宏:

#define WAIT(n) do{state=(n); enque(this); return; L##n:;}while(0)
#define DONE state = -1

#define DISPATCH0 if state < 0) return;
#define DISPATCH1 if(state==1) goto L1; DISPATCH0
#define DISPATCH2 if(state==2) goto L2; DISPATCH1
#define DISPATCH3 if(state==3) goto L3; DISPATCH2
#define DISPATCH4 if(state==4) goto L4; DISPATCH3
... as needed ...

然后(假设初始状态为0)上面的结构化状态机转换为结构化代码:

{
    DISPATCH4; // or as high a number as needed
    request something;
    WAIT(1); // each WAIT has a different number
    while (some condition){
        request something;
        WAIT(2);
        if (one response){
            while (another condition){
                request something;
                WAIT(3);
                do something;
            }
            request one more thing;
            WAIT(4);
        }
        else if (some other response){
            ... some other similar sequence ...
        }
        ... etc, etc.
    }
    DONE;
}

在此基础上，可以有CALL和RETURN，因此一些状态机可以像其他状态机的子例程一样工作。

不寻常吗?是的。维护者是否需要学习一些知识?是的。这种学习有回报吗?我想是的。如果没有跳转到方块中的goto，游戏还能完成吗?不。

Since I began doing a few things in the linux kernel, gotos don't bother me so much as they once did. At first I was sort of horrified to see they (kernel guys) added gotos into my code. I've since become accustomed to the use of gotos, in some limited contexts, and will now occasionally use them myself. Typically, it's a goto that jumps to the end of a function to do some kind of cleanup and bail out, rather than duplicating that same cleanup and bailout in several places in the function. And typically, it's not something large enough to hand off to another function -- e.g. freeing some locally (k)malloc'ed variables is a typical case.

I've written code that used setjmp/longjmp only once. It was in a MIDI drum sequencer program. Playback happened in a separate process from all user interaction, and the playback process used shared memory with the UI process to get the limited info it needed to do the playback. When the user wanted to stop playback, the playback process just did a longjmp "back to the beginning" to start over, rather than some complicated unwinding of wherever it happened to be executing when the user wanted it to stop. It worked great, was simple, and I never had any problems or bugs related to it in that instance.

Setjmp /longjmp有它们自己的位置——但那个位置是你不太可能只在很长一段时间内访问一次的地方。

编辑:我只是看了一下代码。实际上，我使用的是siglongjmp()，而不是longjmp(不是说这是一个大问题，但我已经忘记了siglongjmp的存在。)

跳跃的例子在Java字符串类源代码:

int firstUpper;

/* Now check if there are any characters that need to be changed. */
scan: {
    for (firstUpper = 0 ; firstUpper < count; ) {
         char c = value[offset+firstUpper];
         if ((c >= Character.MIN_HIGH_SURROGATE) &&
                 (c <= Character.MAX_HIGH_SURROGATE)) {
             int supplChar = codePointAt(firstUpper);
             if (supplChar != Character.toLowerCase(supplChar)) {
                  break scan;
             }
             firstUpper += Character.charCount(supplChar);
         } else {
             if (c != Character.toLowerCase(c)) {
                  break scan;
             }
             firstUpper++;
         }
     }
     return this;
}
[... subsequent use of firstUpper ...]

这可以用很少的开销重写，例如:

 int firstUpper = indexOfFirstUpper();
 if (firstUpper < 0) return this; 

即使在现代语言中，即使我实际上不喜欢使用gotos，但我认为它们在许多情况下是可以接受的，在像这样的低级情况下，我看起来更好(它不仅仅是退出循环)。

没有激起宗教战争的意图。

用于调度的计算gotos通常比非常大的switch语句更容易理解。

对于错误和联合线程，我认为setcontext或setjmp(如果可用)是“更好的”。