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。

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。

# 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。

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

我在以下情况下使用goto: 当需要从不同位置的函数返回时，并且在返回之前需要进行一些初始化:

non-goto版本:

int doSomething (struct my_complicated_stuff *ctx)    
{
    db_conn *conn;
    RSA *key;
    char *temp_data;
    conn = db_connect();  


    if (ctx->smth->needs_alloc) {
      temp_data=malloc(ctx->some_size);
      if (!temp_data) {
        db_disconnect(conn);
        return -1;      
        }
    }

    ...

    if (!ctx->smth->needs_to_be_processed) {
        free(temp_data);    
        db_disconnect(conn);    
        return -2;
    }

    pthread_mutex_lock(ctx->mutex);

    if (ctx->some_other_thing->error) {
        pthread_mutex_unlock(ctx->mutex);
        free(temp_data);
        db_disconnect(conn);        
        return -3;  
    }

    ...

    key=rsa_load_key(....);

    ...

    if (ctx->something_else->error) {
         rsa_free(key); 
         pthread_mutex_unlock(ctx->mutex);
         free(temp_data);
         db_disconnect(conn);       
         return -4;  
    }

    if (ctx->something_else->additional_check) {
         rsa_free(key); 
         pthread_mutex_unlock(ctx->mutex);
         free(temp_data);
         db_disconnect(conn);       
         return -5;  
    }


    pthread_mutex_unlock(ctx->mutex);
    free(temp_data);    
    db_disconnect(conn);    
    return 0;     
}

goto版本:

int doSomething_goto (struct my_complicated_stuff *ctx)
{
    int ret=0;
    db_conn *conn;
    RSA *key;
    char *temp_data;
    conn = db_connect();  


    if (ctx->smth->needs_alloc) {
      temp_data=malloc(ctx->some_size);
      if (!temp_data) {
            ret=-1;
           goto exit_db;   
          }
    }

    ...

    if (!ctx->smth->needs_to_be_processed) {
        ret=-2;
        goto exit_freetmp;      
    }

    pthread_mutex_lock(ctx->mutex);

    if (ctx->some_other_thing->error) {
        ret=-3;
        goto exit;  
    }

    ...

    key=rsa_load_key(....);

    ...

    if (ctx->something_else->error) {
        ret=-4;
        goto exit_freekey; 
    }

    if (ctx->something_else->additional_check) {
        ret=-5;
        goto exit_freekey;  
    }

exit_freekey:
    rsa_free(key);
exit:    
    pthread_mutex_unlock(ctx->mutex);
exit_freetmp:
    free(temp_data);        
exit_db:
    db_disconnect(conn);    
    return ret;     
}

当您需要更改释放语句中的某些内容时(每个语句在代码中使用一次)，第二个版本使它变得更容易，并减少了在添加新分支时跳过其中任何一个语句的机会。在函数中移动它们在这里不会有帮助，因为可以在不同的“级别”进行释放。