有些人说在c++中没有去的理由。有人说99%的情况下都有更好的选择。这不是推理，只是非理性的印象。下面是一个可靠的例子，goto会导致一个很好的代码，比如增强的do-while循环:

int i;

PROMPT_INSERT_NUMBER:
  std::cout << "insert number: ";
  std::cin >> i;
  if(std::cin.fail()) {
    std::cin.clear();
    std::cin.ignore(1000,'\n');
    goto PROMPT_INSERT_NUMBER;          
  }

std::cout << "your number is " << i;

将其与goto-free代码进行比较:

int i;

bool loop;
do {
  loop = false;
  std::cout << "insert number: ";
  std::cin >> i;
  if(std::cin.fail()) {
    std::cin.clear();
    std::cin.ignore(1000,'\n');
    loop = true;          
  }
} while(loop);

std::cout << "your number is " << i;

我看到了这些差异:

需要嵌套的{}块(尽管do{…}而看起来更熟悉) 需要额外的循环变量，在四个地方使用 阅读和理解带有循环的工作需要更长的时间 循环不保存任何数据，它只是控制执行的流程，这比简单的标签更难理解

还有一个例子

void sort(int* array, int length) {
SORT:
  for(int i=0; i<length-1; ++i) if(array[i]>array[i+1]) {
    swap(data[i], data[i+1]);
    goto SORT; // it is very easy to understand this code, right?
  }
}

现在让我们摆脱“邪恶”的goto:

void sort(int* array, int length) {
  bool seemslegit;
  do {
    seemslegit = true;
    for(int i=0; i<length-1; ++i) if(array[i]>array[i+1]) {
      swap(data[i], data[i+1]);
      seemslegit = false;
    }
  } while(!seemslegit);
}

你看，这是使用goto的同一类型，它是结构良好的模式，它不像唯一推荐的方式那样转发goto。你肯定想避免这样的“智能”代码:

void sort(int* array, int length) {
  for(int i=0; i<length-1; ++i) if(array[i]>array[i+1]) {
    swap(data[i], data[i+1]);
    i = -1; // it works, but WTF on the first glance
  }
}

关键是goto很容易被误用，但goto本身不应该受到指责。注意，在c++中，label有函数作用域，所以它不会像纯汇编那样污染全局作用域，在纯汇编中，重叠循环有它的位置，而且非常常见——比如下面8051的代码，其中7段显示连接到P1。该程序循环闪电段周围:

; P1 states loops
; 11111110 <-
; 11111101  |
; 11111011  |
; 11110111  |
; 11101111  |
; 11011111  |
; |_________|

init_roll_state:
    MOV P1,#11111110b
    ACALL delay
next_roll_state:
    MOV A,P1
    RL A
    MOV P1,A
    ACALL delay
    JNB P1.5, init_roll_state
    SJMP next_roll_state

还有一个优点:goto可以作为命名循环、条件和其他流:

if(valid) {
  do { // while(loop)

// more than one page of code here
// so it is better to comment the meaning
// of the corresponding curly bracket

  } while(loop);
} // if(valid)

或者你可以使用等效的goto和缩进，所以如果你明智地选择标签名称，你不需要注释:

if(!valid) goto NOTVALID;
  LOOPBACK:

// more than one page of code here

  if(loop) goto LOOPBACK;
NOTVALID:;

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。

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。

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。

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。

盲目地遵循最佳实践并不是最佳实践。避免将goto语句作为流控制的主要形式是为了避免产生难以阅读的意大利面条代码。如果在正确的地方谨慎使用，它们有时可以成为表达想法的最简单、最清晰的方式。Walter Bright, Zortech c++编译器和D编程语言的创造者，经常使用它们，但很明智。即使使用了goto语句，他的代码仍然完全可读。

底线:为了避免去那里而避免去那里是毫无意义的。您真正需要避免的是生成不可读的代码。如果充满goto的代码是可读的，那么它就没有任何问题。