当然，可以使用GOTO，但是有一件事比代码风格更重要，或者在使用它时，您必须考虑到代码是否可读:其中的代码可能不像您想象的那样健壮。

例如，看看下面的两个代码片段:

If A <> 0 Then A = 0 EndIf
Write("Value of A:" + A)

GOTO的等效代码

If A == 0 Then GOTO FINAL EndIf
   A = 0
FINAL:
Write("Value of A:" + A)

我们首先想到的是这两段代码的结果将是“Value of A: 0”(当然，我们假设执行没有并行性)

这是不正确的:在第一个示例中，A将始终为0，但在第二个示例中(使用GOTO语句)A可能不是0。为什么?

原因是，从程序的另一点，我可以插入一个GOTO FINAL而不控制a的值。

这个例子非常明显，但是随着程序变得越来越复杂，看到这些东西的难度也增加了。

相关材料可以在Dijkstra先生的著名文章“反对GO TO声明的案例”中找到

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。

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。

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。

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。

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.