计算机科学家Edsger Dijkstra在该领域做出了重大贡献，他也因批评GoTo的使用而闻名。 维基百科上有一篇关于他观点的短文。

因为goto使得程序流的推理变得困难。“意大利面条代码”)，goto通常只用于弥补缺失的功能:使用goto实际上可能是可以接受的，但前提是语言没有提供更结构化的变体来获得相同的目标。以《怀疑》为例:

我们使用的goto规则是，goto可以跳转到函数中的单个退出清理点。

这是对的——但前提是语言不允许使用清理代码进行结构化异常处理(如RAII或finally)，后者可以更好地完成相同的工作(因为它是专门为此而构建的)，或者有很好的理由不使用结构化异常处理(但除非在非常低的级别，否则您永远不会遇到这种情况)。

在大多数其他语言中，goto唯一可接受的用法是退出嵌套循环。即使在这种情况下，将外部循环提升为自己的方法并使用return也总是更好。

除此之外，goto是对特定代码段考虑不够的标志。

支持goto实现一些限制的现代语言(例如，goto可能不会跳转到函数中或跳出函数)，但问题从根本上还是一样的。

顺便说一句，其他语言特性当然也是如此，尤其是例外。而且通常有严格的规则，只在指定的地方使用这些特性，例如不使用异常来控制非异常程序流的规则。

看看在C语言中编程时何时使用Goto:

Although the use of goto is almost always bad programming practice (surely you can find a better way of doing XYZ), there are times when it really isn't a bad choice. Some might even argue that, when it is useful, it's the best choice. Most of what I have to say about goto really only applies to C. If you're using C++, there's no sound reason to use goto in place of exceptions. In C, however, you don't have the power of an exception handling mechanism, so if you want to separate out error handling from the rest of your program logic, and you want to avoid rewriting clean up code multiple times throughout your code, then goto can be a good choice.

我是什么意思?你可能会有这样的代码:

int big_function()
{
    /* do some work */
    if([error])
    {
        /* clean up*/
        return [error];
    }
    /* do some more work */
    if([error])
    {
        /* clean up*/
        return [error];
    }
    /* do some more work */
    if([error])
    {
        /* clean up*/
        return [error];
    }
    /* do some more work */
    if([error])
    {
        /* clean up*/
        return [error];
    }
    /* clean up*/
    return [success];
}

This is fine until you realize that you need to change your cleanup code. Then you have to go through and make 4 changes. Now, you might decide that you can just encapsulate all of the cleanup into a single function; that's not a bad idea. But it does mean that you'll need to be careful with pointers -- if you plan to free a pointer in your cleanup function, there's no way to set it to then point to NULL unless you pass in a pointer to a pointer. In a lot of cases, you won't be using that pointer again anyway, so that may not be a major concern. On the other hand, if you add in a new pointer, file handle, or other thing that needs cleanup, then you'll need to change your cleanup function again; and then you'll need to change the arguments to that function.

通过使用goto，它将是

int big_function()
{
    int ret_val = [success];
    /* do some work */
    if([error])
    {
        ret_val = [error];
        goto end;
    }
    /* do some more work */
    if([error])
    {
        ret_val = [error];
        goto end;
    }
    /* do some more work */
    if([error])
    {
        ret_val = [error];
        goto end;
    }
    /* do some more work */
    if([error])
    {
        ret_val = [error];
        goto end;
    }
end:
    /* clean up*/
    return ret_val;
}

这样做的好处是，您的代码可以访问执行清理所需的所有内容，并且您已经成功地减少了更改点的数量。另一个好处是你的函数从多个出口点变成了只有一个;不可能不小心从函数返回而不进行清理。

此外，由于goto仅用于跳转到单个点，因此并不是为了模拟函数调用而创建大量来回跳转的意大利面代码。相反，goto实际上有助于编写更结构化的代码。

总而言之，goto应该谨慎使用，并作为最后的手段——但它是有时间和地点的。问题不应该是“你是否必须使用它”，而应该是“它是使用它的最佳选择”。

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。

Everybody who is anti-goto cites, directly or indirectly, Edsger Dijkstra's GoTo Considered Harmful article to substantiate their position. Too bad Dijkstra's article has virtually nothing to do with the way goto statements are used these days and thus what the article says has little to no applicability to the modern programming scene. The goto-less meme verges now on a religion, right down to its scriptures dictated from on high, its high priests and the shunning (or worse) of perceived heretics.

让我们把Dijkstra的论文放在背景中，对这个问题有一些了解。

When Dijkstra wrote his paper the popular languages of the time were unstructured procedural ones like BASIC, FORTRAN (the earlier dialects) and various assembly languages. It was quite common for people using the higher-level languages to jump all over their code base in twisted, contorted threads of execution that gave rise to the term "spaghetti code". You can see this by hopping on over to the classic Trek game written by Mike Mayfield and trying to figure out how things work. Take a few moments to look that over.

这就是Dijkstra在1968年的论文中谴责的“毫无节制地使用go to语句”。这就是他所生活的环境，促使他写出了那篇论文。在你的代码中，在你喜欢的任何地方跳转的能力是他所批评和要求停止的。将其与C或其他更现代的语言中goto的弱功能进行比较简直是可笑的。

我已经能听到信徒们面对异教徒时扬起的呐喊声了。“但是，”他们会念叨，“用c语言的goto会让代码变得很难读。”哦,是吗?如果没有goto，代码也会变得难以阅读。比如这个:

#define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
{
            _-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
            _-_-_-_
}

看不见goto，所以它一定很容易读，对吧?或者这个怎么样:

a[900];     b;c;d=1     ;e=1;f;     g;h;O;      main(k,
l)char*     *l;{g=      atoi(*      ++l);       for(k=
0;k*k<      g;b=k       ++>>1)      ;for(h=     0;h*h<=
g;++h);     --h;c=(     (h+=g>h     *(h+1))     -1)>>1;
while(d     <=g){       ++O;for     (f=0;f<     O&&d<=g
;++f)a[     b<<5|c]     =d++,b+=    e;for(      f=0;f<O
&&d<=g;     ++f)a[b     <<5|c]=     d++,c+=     e;e= -e
;}for(c     =0;c<h;     ++c){       for(b=0     ;b<k;++
b){if(b     <k/2)a[     b<<5|c]     ^=a[(k      -(b+1))
<<5|c]^=    a[b<<5      |c]^=a[     (k-(b+1     ))<<5|c]
;printf(    a[b<<5|c    ]?"%-4d"    :"    "     ,a[b<<5
|c]);}      putchar(    '\n');}}    /*Mike      Laman*/

也不去那里。因此它必须是可读的。

我举这些例子的重点是什么?并不是语言特性导致代码不可读、不可维护。这不是语法造成的。这是糟糕的程序员造成的。而糟糕的程序员，正如你在上面的项目中所看到的，可以使任何语言特性无法阅读和使用。比如上面的for循环。(你能看到他们，对吧?)

公平地说，有些语言结构比其他结构更容易被滥用。然而，如果你是一个C程序员，我会更仔细地观察#define大约50%的使用情况，然后才会开始反对goto!

因此，对于那些已经阅读到这里的人来说，有几个关键点需要注意。

Dijkstra's paper on goto statements was written for a programming environment where goto was a lot more potentially damaging than it is in most modern languages that aren't an assembler. Automatically throwing away all uses of goto because of this is about as rational as saying "I tried to have fun once but didn't like it so now I'm against it". There are legitimate uses of the modern (anaemic) goto statements in code that cannot be adequately replaced by other constructs. There are, of course, illegitimate uses of the same statements. There are, too, illegitimate uses of the modern control statements like the "godo" abomination where an always-false do loop is broken out of using break in place of a goto. These are often worse than judicious use of goto.

我们使用的goto规则是，goto可以跳转到函数中的单个退出清理点。在真正复杂的函数中，我们放松了这个规则，允许其他跳转。在这两种情况下，我们都避免了经常在错误代码检查中出现的深度嵌套的if语句，这有助于可读性和维护。