在阅读了所有的答案和更多的研究之后，我得到了一些东西。

Case statements are only 'labels'

在C语言中，根据规范，

§6.8.1标签声明:

labeled-statement:
    identifier : statement
    case constant-expression : statement
    default : statement

在C语言中，没有任何子句允许“标记声明”。这不是语言的一部分。

So

case 1: int x=10;
        printf(" x is %d",x);
break;

这将不会编译，请参阅http://codepad.org/YiyLQTYw。GCC给出一个错误:

label can only be a part of statement and declaration is not a statement

Even

  case 1: int x;
          x=10;
            printf(" x is %d",x);
    break;

这也不是编译，参见http://codepad.org/BXnRD3bu。这里我也得到了同样的错误。

在c++中，根据规范，

允许标记-声明，但不允许标记-初始化。

见http://codepad.org/ZmQ0IyDG。

这种情况的解是二

使用{}使用新的作用域 案例1: ｛ int x = 10; Printf (" x是%d"， x); ｝ 打破; 或者使用带标签的虚拟语句 案例1:; int x = 10; Printf (" x是%d"，x); 打破; 在switch()之前声明变量，并在case语句中用不同的值初始化它，如果它满足您的要求 main () ｛ int x;//在前面声明 开关(a) ｛ 情况1:x=10; 打破; 情况2:x=20; 打破; ｝ ｝

还有更多关于switch语句的东西

永远不要在switch中写入任何不属于任何标签的语句，因为它们永远不会被执行:

switch(a)
{
    printf("This will never print"); // This will never executed

    case 1:
        printf(" 1");
        break;

    default:
        break;
}

见http://codepad.org/PA1quYX3。

如果你的代码说“int newVal=42”，那么你可以合理地期望newVal永远不会是未初始化的。但是如果你浏览这条语句(这就是你正在做的)，那么就会发生这样的事情——newVal在作用域内，但没有被分配。

如果这是你真正想要发生的，那么语言需要通过“int newVal;newVal = 42;"。否则，您可以将newVal的范围限制为单个情况，这更可能是您想要的结果。

如果你考虑相同的例子，但加上"const int newVal = 42;"

整个switch语句在同一个作用域中。要解决这个问题，可以这样做:

switch (val)
{
    case VAL:
    {
        // This **will** work
        int newVal = 42;
    }
    break;

    case ANOTHER_VAL:
      ...
    break;
}

注意括号。

试试这个:

switch (val)
{
    case VAL:
    {
        int newVal = 42;
    }
    break;
}

我只是想强调斯利姆的观点。转换构造创建了一个完整的、一等公民的范围。因此，可以在switch语句中在第一个case标签之前声明(并初始化)一个变量，而不需要额外的括号对:

switch (val) {  
  /* This *will* work, even in C89 */
  int newVal = 42;  
case VAL:
  newVal = 1984; 
  break;
case ANOTHER_VAL:  
  newVal = 2001;
  break;
}

这个问题最初同时被标记为c和c++。原始代码在C和c++中都是无效的，但原因完全不同，互不相关。

In C++ this code is invalid because the case ANOTHER_VAL: label jumps into the scope of variable newVal bypassing its initialization. Jumps that bypass initialization of automatic objects are illegal in C++. This side of the issue is correctly addressed by most answers. However, in C language bypassing variable initialization is not an error. Jumping into the scope of a variable over its initialization is legal in C. It simply means that the variable is left uninitialized. The original code does not compile in C for a completely different reason. Label case VAL: in the original code is attached to the declaration of variable newVal. In C language declarations are not statements. They cannot be labeled. And this is what causes the error when this code is interpreted as C code. switch (val) { case VAL: /* <- C error is here */ int newVal = 42; break; case ANOTHER_VAL: /* <- C++ error is here */ ... break; } Adding an extra {} block fixes both C++ and C problems, even though these problems happen to be very different. On the C++ side it restricts the scope of newVal, making sure that case ANOTHER_VAL: no longer jumps into that scope, which eliminates the C++ issue. On the C side that extra {} introduces a compound statement, thus making the case VAL: label to apply to a statement, which eliminates the C issue. In C case the problem can be easily solved without the {}. Just add an empty statement after the case VAL: label and the code will become valid switch (val) { case VAL:; /* Now it works in C! */ int newVal = 42; break; case ANOTHER_VAL: ... break; } Note that even though it is now valid from C point of view, it remains invalid from C++ point of view. Symmetrically, in C++ case the the problem can be easily solved without the {}. Just remove the initializer from variable declaration and the code will become valid switch (val) { case VAL: int newVal; newVal = 42; break; case ANOTHER_VAL: /* Now it works in C++! */ ... break; } Note that even though it is now valid from C++ point of view, it remains invalid from C point of view.

从C23开始，C语言中的所有标签都将被解释为标签隐含的空语句(N2508)，也就是说，在C语言中不能将标签放在声明前面的问题将不再存在，并且不再需要上述基于;的修复。