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。

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。

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。

它有时在按字符进行字符串处理时很方便。

想象一下这样一个printf式的例子:

for cur_char, next_char in sliding_window(input_string) {
    if cur_char == '%' {
        if next_char == '%' {
            cur_char_index += 1
            goto handle_literal
        }
        # Some additional logic
        if chars_should_be_handled_literally() {
            goto handle_literal
        }
        # Handle the format
    }
    # some other control characters
    else {
      handle_literal:
        # Complicated logic here
        # Maybe it's writing to an array for some OpenGL calls later or something,
        # all while modifying a bunch of local variables declared outside the loop
    }
}

您可以将goto handle_literal重构为一个函数调用，但如果它修改了几个不同的局部变量，则必须将引用传递给每个局部变量，除非您的语言支持可变闭包。如果您的逻辑使else case不起作用，那么您仍然必须在调用之后使用continue语句(可以说是goto的一种形式)以获得相同的语义。

我还在lexer中明智地使用了gotos，通常用于类似的情况。大多数时候你不需要它们，但在一些奇怪的情况下有它们很好。

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。

在c#中，switch语句不允许切换。因此，goto用于将控制转移到特定的开关箱标签或默认标签。

例如:

switch(value)
{
  case 0:
    Console.WriteLine("In case 0");
    goto case 1;
  case 1:
    Console.WriteLine("In case 1");
    goto case 2;
  case 2:
    Console.WriteLine("In case 2");
    goto default;
  default:
    Console.WriteLine("In default");
    break;
}

编辑:有一个例外的“不掉落”规则。如果case语句没有代码，则允许延迟执行。