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。

我避免使用它，因为同事/经理无疑会在代码评审或偶然发现它时质疑它的使用。虽然我认为它有一些用途(例如错误处理案例)，但你会遇到一些其他开发人员，他们会遇到一些类型的问题。

这不值得。

今天，很难看出GOTO语句有什么大不了的，因为“结构化编程”的人赢得了这场辩论，今天的语言有足够的控制流结构来避免GOTO。

计算现代C程序中goto的数量。现在添加break、continue和return语句的数量。此外，加上你使用if、else、while、switch或case的次数。这是1968年Dijkstra写这封信时，如果你用FORTRAN或BASIC语言编写程序，你的程序会有多少个goto。

当时的编程语言缺乏控制流程。例如，在最初的达特茅斯BASIC中:

IF statements had no ELSE. If you wanted one, you had to write: 100 IF NOT condition THEN GOTO 200 ...stuff to do if condition is true... 190 GOTO 300 200 REM else ...stuff to do if condition is false... 300 REM end if Even if your IF statement didn't need an ELSE, it was still limited to a single line, which usually consisted of a GOTO. There was no DO...LOOP statement. For non-FOR loops, you had to end the loop with an explicit GOTO or IF...GOTO back to the beginning. There was no SELECT CASE. You had to use ON...GOTO.

因此，您的程序中最终出现了许多goto。并且您不能依赖于goto限制在单个子例程中(因为GOSUB…RETURN是一个非常弱的子例程概念)，所以这些goto可以去任何地方。显然，这使得控制流难以遵循。

这就是反goto运动的由来。

在C语言中，goto只在当前函数的范围内工作，这倾向于本地化任何潜在的错误。Setjmp和longjmp要危险得多，它们是非本地的、复杂的、依赖于实现的。然而，在实践中，它们太模糊和不常见，不会引起很多问题。

我认为在C中goto的危险被大大夸大了。请记住，最初的goto参数发生在老式BASIC等语言的时代，初学者会编写这样的意大利面条代码:

3420 IF A > 2 THEN GOTO 1430

这里Linus描述了goto的适当用法:http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/CodingStyle(第7章)。

Goto很有用，这里有一个用c++写的非常强大的开源象棋引擎stockfish的例子。goto只是跳过了一些条件检查(效率增益)，如果没有goto语句，程序就必须这样做。如果goto语句标签位于goto声明之后，那么它们就非常无害且可读。

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。)