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。)

原论文应该被认为是“无条件GOTO被认为是有害的”。它特别提倡一种基于条件(if)和迭代(while)结构的编程形式，而不是早期代码常见的测试-跳转。Goto在某些语言或环境中仍然有用，因为这些语言或环境不存在适当的控制结构。

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。

后藤认为他很有帮助。

我从1975年开始编程。对于20世纪70年代的程序员来说，“goto被认为是有害的”这个词或多或少地表明，具有现代控制结构的新编程语言值得一试。我们确实尝试了新的语言。我们很快就皈依了。我们再也没有回去过。

我们再也没有回去过，但是，如果你更年轻，那么你就从来没有去过那里。

现在，拥有古老编程语言的背景可能并没有太大用处，除非它能显示程序员的年龄。尽管如此，年轻的程序员缺乏这方面的背景，所以他们不再理解口号“goto被认为是有害的”在引入时向目标受众传达的信息。

一个人不理解的口号是不太有启发性的。也许最好忘记这些口号。这样的口号无济于事。

然而，这个特别的口号，“后藤有害”，已经有了它自己的不死生命。

能去不被虐待吗?回答:当然，但那又怎样?实际上，每一个编程元素都可能被滥用。例如，普通bool被滥用的次数比我们中的一些人愿意相信的要多。

相比之下，自1990年以来，我不记得遇到过一次真正的goto滥用案例。

goto最大的问题可能不是技术问题，而是社交问题。不太懂的程序员有时似乎觉得不赞成goto会让他们听起来很聪明。您可能需要不时地满足这样的程序员。生活就是这样。

今天goto最糟糕的事情是它没有被充分使用。

因为goto可以用于令人困惑的元编程

Goto既是高级控件表达式，也是低级控件表达式，因此它没有适合大多数问题的合适设计模式。

它是低级的，因为goto是一个基本操作，它实现了一些高级操作，比如while或foreach之类的。

从某种意义上说，它是高级的，当以某种方式使用时，它将以一种清晰的顺序执行的代码，以一种不间断的方式(除了结构化循环)，并将其转换为逻辑片段，这些逻辑片段有足够的gotos，可以动态地重新组装逻辑。

所以，有平淡的一面，也有邪恶的一面。

平淡的一面是，一个向上指向的goto可以实现一个完全合理的循环，而一个向下指向的goto可以执行一个完全合理的中断或返回。当然，实际的while、break或return语句可读性更强，因为可怜的人不需要为了了解全局而模拟goto语句的效果。总的来说，这是个坏主意。

The evil side involves a routine not using goto for while, break, or return, but using it for what's called spaghetti logic. In this case the goto-happy developer is constructing pieces of code out of a maze of goto's, and the only way to understand it is to simulate it mentally as a whole, a terribly tiring task when there are many goto's. I mean, imagine the trouble of evaluating code where the else is not precisely an inverse of the if, where nested ifs might allow in some things that were rejected by the outer if, etc, etc.

Finally, to really cover the subject, we should note that essentially all early languages except Algol initially made only single statements subject to their versions of if-then-else. So, the only way to do a conditional block was to goto around it using an inverse conditional. Insane, I know, but I've read some old specs. Remember that the first computers were programmed in binary machine code so I suppose any kind of an HLL was a lifesaver; I guess they weren't too picky about exactly what HLL features they got.

说了这么多，我曾经在我写的每个程序中都加了一个go，“只是为了惹恼那些纯粹主义者”。

您可以使用它来打破深度嵌套循环，但大多数情况下，无需深度嵌套循环，代码可以重构得更干净。