我发现有趣的是，有些人会给出一个可以接受goto的例子列表，说所有其他的用法都是不可接受的。你真的认为你知道每种情况下goto是表达算法的最佳选择吗?

为了说明这一点，我将给你一个还没有人展示过的例子:

今天我在写代码，在哈希表中插入一个元素。哈希表是以前计算的缓存，可以随意重写(影响性能但不影响正确性)。

哈希表的每个桶都有4个槽，当桶满时，我有一堆标准来决定覆盖哪个元素。现在，这意味着在一个桶中最多要经过三次，就像这样:

// Overwrite an element with same hash key if it exists
for (add_index=0; add_index < ELEMENTS_PER_BUCKET; add_index++)
  if (slot_p[add_index].hash_key == hash_key)
    goto add;

// Otherwise, find first empty element
for (add_index=0; add_index < ELEMENTS_PER_BUCKET; add_index++)
  if ((slot_p[add_index].type == TT_ELEMENT_EMPTY)
    goto add;

// Additional passes go here...

add:
// element is written to the hash table here

如果不使用goto，代码会是什么样子?

就像这样:

// Overwrite an element with same hash key if it exists
for (add_index=0; add_index < ELEMENTS_PER_BUCKET; add_index++)
  if (slot_p[add_index].hash_key == hash_key)
    break;

if (add_index >= ELEMENTS_PER_BUCKET) {
  // Otherwise, find first empty element
  for (add_index=0; add_index < ELEMENTS_PER_BUCKET; add_index++)
    if ((slot_p[add_index].type == TT_ELEMENT_EMPTY)
      break;
  if (add_index >= ELEMENTS_PER_BUCKET)
   // Additional passes go here (nested further)...
}

// element is written to the hash table here

如果添加更多的遍数，它看起来会越来越糟，而带有goto的版本始终保持相同的缩进级别，并避免使用虚假的if语句，其结果由前一个循环的执行暗示。

所以在另一种情况下，goto使代码更清晰，更容易编写和理解……我相信还有更多的例子，所以不要假装知道所有goto有用的例子，而轻视任何你想不到的好例子。

在Perl中，使用标签从循环中“goto”—使用“last”语句，这类似于break。

这样可以更好地控制嵌套循环。

也支持传统的goto标签，但我不确定是否有太多的实例，这是实现您想要的结果的唯一方法-子例程和循环应该足以满足大多数情况。

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。

“goto”的问题和“无goto编程”运动最重要的论点是，如果你过于频繁地使用它，尽管你的代码可能表现正确，但它会变得不可读、不可维护、不可审查等。在99.99%的情况下，“goto”会导致意大利面条代码。就我个人而言，我想不出任何好的理由来解释为什么我会使用“goto”。

我发现do{} while(false)的用法完全令人反感。它可能会让我相信它在某些奇怪的情况下是必要的，但从来没有让我相信它是干净合理的代码。

如果必须执行这样的循环，为什么不显式地依赖标志变量呢?

for (stepfailed=0 ; ! stepfailed ; /*empty*/)