使用“goto”使你的代码更易于阅读或运行得更快。只是不要让它把你的代码变成意大利面条。

嗯，有一件事总是比goto更糟糕;奇怪地使用其他程序流操作符来避免goto:

例子:

    // 1
    try{
      ...
      throw NoErrorException;
      ...
    } catch (const NoErrorException& noe){
      // This is the worst
    } 


    // 2
    do {
      ...break; 
      ...break;
    } while (false);


    // 3
    for(int i = 0;...) { 
      bool restartOuter = false;
      for (int j = 0;...) {
        if (...)
          restartOuter = true;
      if (restartOuter) {
        i = -1;
      }
    }

etc
etc

1) The most common use of goto that I know of is emulating exception handling in languages that don't offer it, namely in C. (The code given by Nuclear above is just that.) Look at the Linux source code and you'll see a bazillion gotos used that way; there were about 100,000 gotos in Linux code according to a quick survey conducted in 2013: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/894. Goto usage is even mentioned in the Linux coding style guide: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/CodingStyle. Just like object-oriented programming is emulated using structs populated with function pointers, goto has its place in C programming. So who is right: Dijkstra or Linus (and all Linux kernel coders)? It's theory vs. practice basically.

There is however the usual gotcha for not having compiler-level support and checks for common constructs/patterns: it's easier to use them wrong and introduce bugs without compile-time checks. Windows and Visual C++ but in C mode offer exception handling via SEH/VEH for this very reason: exceptions are useful even outside OOP languages, i.e. in a procedural language. But the compiler can't always save your bacon, even if it offers syntactic support for exceptions in the language. Consider as example of the latter case the famous Apple SSL "goto fail" bug, which just duplicated one goto with disastrous consequences (https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html):

if (something())
  goto fail;
  goto fail; // copypasta bug
printf("Never reached\n");
fail:
  // control jumps here

使用编译器支持的异常也会出现同样的错误，例如在c++中:

struct Fail {};

try {
  if (something())
    throw Fail();
    throw Fail(); // copypasta bug
  printf("Never reached\n");
}
catch (Fail&) {
  // control jumps here
}

But both variants of the bug can be avoided if the compiler analyzes and warns you about unreachable code. For example compiling with Visual C++ at the /W4 warning level finds the bug in both cases. Java for instance forbids unreachable code (where it can find it!) for a pretty good reason: it's likely to be a bug in the average Joe's code. As long as the goto construct doesn't allow targets that the compiler can't easily figure out, like gotos to computed addresses(**), it's not any harder for the compiler to find unreachable code inside a function with gotos than using Dijkstra-approved code.

(**) Footnote: Gotos to computed line numbers are possible in some versions of Basic, e.g. GOTO 10*x where x is a variable. Rather confusingly, in Fortran "computed goto" refers to a construct that is equivalent to a switch statement in C. Standard C doesn't allow computed gotos in the language, but only gotos to statically/syntactically declared labels. GNU C however has an extension to get the address of a label (the unary, prefix && operator) and also allows a goto to a variable of type void*. See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Labels-as-Values.html for more on this obscure sub-topic. The rest of this post ins't concerned with that obscure GNU C feature.

标准C(即未计算的)goto通常不是无法在编译时找到不可达代码的原因。通常的原因是如下所示的逻辑代码。鉴于

int computation1() {
  return 1;
}

int computation2() {
  return computation1();
}

对于编译器来说，在以下3种结构中找到不可访问的代码同样困难:

void tough1() {
  if (computation1() != computation2())
    printf("Unreachable\n");
}

void tough2() {
  if (computation1() == computation2())
    goto out;
  printf("Unreachable\n");
out:;
}

struct Out{};

void tough3() {
  try {
    if (computation1() == computation2())
      throw Out();
    printf("Unreachable\n");
  }
  catch (Out&) {
  }
}

(请原谅我使用了与大括号相关的编码风格，但我试图使示例尽可能紧凑。)

Visual c++ /W4(即使使用/Ox)也无法在这些类型中找到无法到达的代码，而且正如您可能知道的那样，寻找无法到达的代码的问题通常是无法确定的。(如果你不相信我的话:https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/2006/OptComp/slides/lecture02.pdf)

As a related issue, the C goto can be used to emulate exceptions only inside the body of a function. The standard C library offers a setjmp() and longjmp() pair of functions for emulating non-local exits/exceptions, but those have some serious drawbacks compared to what other languages offer. The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setjmp.h explains fairly well this latter issue. This function pair also works on Windows (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yz2ez4as.aspx), but hardly anyone uses them there because SEH/VEH is superior. Even on Unix, I think setjmp and longjmp are very seldom used.

2) I think the second most common use of goto in C is implementing multi-level break or multi-level continue, which is also a fairly uncontroversial use case. Recall that Java doesn't allow goto label, but allows break label or continue label. According to http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/simple-142616.html, this is actually the most common use case of gotos in C (90% they say), but in my subjective experience, system code tends to use gotos for error handling more often. Perhaps in scientific code or where the OS offers exception handling (Windows) then multi-level exits are the dominant use case. They don't really give any details as to the context of their survey.

编辑补充:这两种使用模式出现在Kernighan和Ritchie的C语言书的第60页左右(取决于版本)。另一件值得注意的事情是，这两个用例都只涉及forward goto。MISRA C 2012版(不像2004版)现在允许goto，只要它们是向前的。

我遇到过goto是一个很好的解决方案的情况，我在这里或其他地方都没有看到过这个例子。

我有一个开关的情况下，所有的情况都需要调用相同的函数在最后。我有其他的情况，最后都需要调用不同的函数。

这看起来有点像这样:

switch( x ) {
    
    case 1: case1() ; doStuffFor123() ; break ;
    case 2: case2() ; doStuffFor123() ; break ;
    case 3: case3() ; doStuffFor123() ; break ;
    
    case 4: case4() ; doStuffFor456() ; break ;
    case 5: case5() ; doStuffFor456() ; break ;
    case 6: case6() ; doStuffFor456() ; break ;
    
    case 7: case7() ; doStuffFor789() ; break ;
    case 8: case8() ; doStuffFor789() ; break ;
    case 9: case9() ; doStuffFor789() ; break ;
}

我没有给每个case一个函数调用，而是用goto代替了break。goto跳转到一个标签，这也是在开关的情况下。

switch( x ) {
    
    case 1: case1() ; goto stuff123 ;
    case 2: case2() ; goto stuff123 ;
    case 3: case3() ; goto stuff123 ;
    
    case 4: case4() ; goto stuff456 ;
    case 5: case5() ; goto stuff456 ;
    case 6: case6() ; goto stuff456 ;
    
    case 7: case7() ; goto stuff789 ;
    case 8: case8() ; goto stuff789 ;
    case 9: case9() ; goto stuff789 ;
    
    stuff123: doStuffFor123() ; break ;
    stuff456: doStuffFor456() ; break ;
    stuff789: doStuffFor789() ; break ;
}

案例1到3都必须调用doStuffFor123()，类似的案例4到6必须调用doStuffFor456()等。

在我看来，如果你正确使用它们，gotos是非常好的。最后，任何代码都像人们写的那样清晰。有了gotos，你可以写出意大利面代码，但这并不意味着gotos是意大利面代码的原因。这个事业就是我们;程序员。如果我愿意，我也可以用函数创建意大利面条代码。宏也是如此。

下面是我所知道的使用“goto”语句的一些原因(有些人已经谈到了这个问题):

干净地退出函数

通常在一个函数中，您可能会分配资源并需要在多个位置退出。程序员可以通过将资源清理代码放在函数的末尾来简化他们的代码，并且函数的所有“出口点”都将进入清理标签。这样，您就不必在函数的每个“退出点”都编写清理代码。

退出嵌套循环

如果处于嵌套循环中，需要跳出所有循环，那么goto可以比break语句和If -checks更简洁。

低水平的性能改进

这只在对性能要求严格的代码中有效，但是goto语句执行得非常快，并且可以在遍历函数时提高性能。然而，这是一把双刃剑，因为编译器通常不能优化包含goto的代码。

注意，在所有这些示例中，gotos都被限制在单个函数的范围内。

如果有，为什么?

C语言没有多级/标记的中断，并不是所有的控制流都可以用C语言的迭代和决策原语轻松建模。Gotos对纠正这些缺陷大有帮助。

有时使用某种类型的标志变量来实现一种伪多级中断更清晰，但它并不总是优于goto(至少goto可以轻松地确定控制的位置，不像标志变量)，有时您只是不想为了避免goto而付出旗帜/其他扭曲的性能代价。

Libavcodec是一段性能敏感的代码。控制流的直接表达可能是优先考虑的，因为它往往会运行得更好。