这些年来，我写了不少汇编语言。最终，每一种高级语言都被编译成gotos。好吧，叫它们“分支”或“跳跃”或其他什么，但它们是gotos。有人能写无goto汇编器吗?

当然，你可以向Fortran、C或BASIC程序员指出，gotos的泛滥就像意大利肉酱面一样。然而，答案不是避免它们，而是小心地使用它们。

刀可以用来准备食物，解救某人，或者杀死某人。我们会因为害怕后者而没有刀吗?同样，“后向”:不小心使用它会碍事，小心使用它会有所帮助。

# ifdef TONGUE_IN_CHEEK

Perl有一个goto，它允许您实现穷人的尾部调用。: - p

sub factorial {
    my ($n, $acc) = (@_, 1);
    return $acc if $n < 1;
    @_ = ($n - 1, $acc * $n);
    goto &factorial;
}

# endif

好吧，所以这和C的goto没有关系。更重要的是，我同意其他关于使用goto进行清理或实现Duff的设备等的评论。这都是关于利用，而不是滥用。

(同样的注释可以应用于longjmp、异常、call/cc等等——它们有合法的用途，但很容易被滥用。例如，在完全非异常的情况下，抛出异常纯粹是为了转义深度嵌套的控制结构。)

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不好的一个原因是，除了编码风格之外，你可以用它来创建重叠但非嵌套的循环:

loop1:
  a
loop2:
  b
  if(cond1) goto loop1
  c
  if(cond2) goto loop2

这将创建一个奇怪的，但可能是合法的流控制结构，其中可能有(a, b, c, b, a, b, a, b, b，…)这样的序列，这让编译器黑客不高兴。显然，有许多聪明的优化技巧依赖于这种类型的结构不发生。(我应该检查一下我的龙书……)这样做的结果(使用一些编译器)可能是对包含gotos的代码没有进行其他优化。

如果你知道它只是“哦，顺便说一下”，恰好说服编译器发出更快的代码，那么它可能会很有用。就我个人而言，我更喜欢在使用像goto这样的技巧之前尝试向编译器解释什么是可能的，什么是不可能的，但可以说，我也可能在破解汇编程序之前尝试goto。

关于goto语句，它们的合法用途，以及可以用来代替“有道德的goto语句”但也可以像goto语句一样容易被滥用的替代结构，最深思熟虑和彻底的讨论是Donald Knuth的文章“使用goto语句的结构化编程”，在1974年12月的Computing Surveys(卷6,no. 1)中。4. 第261 - 301页)。

毫不奇怪，这篇39年前的论文的某些方面已经过时了:处理能力的数量级增长使得Knuth的一些性能改进对于中等规模的问题来说并不明显，从那时起就发明了新的编程语言结构。(例如，try-catch块包含Zahn的Construct，尽管它们很少以这种方式使用。)但Knuth涵盖了争论的方方面面，在任何人再次重复这个问题之前，都应该要求阅读。

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