在Perl模块中，有时希望动态地创建子例程或闭包。问题是，一旦你创建了子例程，你如何得到它。你可以直接调用它，但是如果子例程使用caller()，那么它就没有那么有用了。这就是goto &子例程变化可能有用的地方。

这里有一个简单的例子:

sub AUTOLOAD{
  my($self) = @_;
  my $name = $AUTOLOAD;
  $name =~ s/.*:://;

  *{$name} = my($sub) = sub{
    # the body of the closure
  }

  goto $sub;

  # nothing after the goto will ever be executed.
}

您还可以使用这种形式的goto来提供尾部调用优化的基本形式。

sub factorial($){
  my($n,$tally) = (@_,1);

  return $tally if $n <= 1;

  $tally *= $n--;
  @_ = ($n,$tally);
  goto &factorial;
}

(在Perl 5 version 16中，最好写成goto __SUB__;)

有一个模块会导入尾修饰符，如果你不喜欢使用这种形式的goto，还有一个模块会导入递归。

use Sub::Call::Tail;
sub AUTOLOAD {
  ...
  tail &$sub( @_ );
}

use Sub::Call::Recur;
sub factorial($){
  my($n,$tally) = (@_,1);

  return $tally if $n <= 1;
  recur( $n-1, $tally * $n );
}

使用goto的大多数其他原因都可以用其他关键字更好地完成。

比如重写一段代码:

LABEL: ;
...
goto LABEL if $x;

{
  ...
  redo if $x;
}

或者从多个地方找到最后一段代码:

goto LABEL if $x;
...
goto LABEL if $y;
...
LABEL: ;

{
  last if $x;
  ...
  last if $y
  ...
}

有些人说在c++中没有去的理由。有人说99%的情况下都有更好的选择。这不是推理，只是非理性的印象。下面是一个可靠的例子，goto会导致一个很好的代码，比如增强的do-while循环:

int i;

PROMPT_INSERT_NUMBER:
  std::cout << "insert number: ";
  std::cin >> i;
  if(std::cin.fail()) {
    std::cin.clear();
    std::cin.ignore(1000,'\n');
    goto PROMPT_INSERT_NUMBER;          
  }

std::cout << "your number is " << i;

将其与goto-free代码进行比较:

int i;

bool loop;
do {
  loop = false;
  std::cout << "insert number: ";
  std::cin >> i;
  if(std::cin.fail()) {
    std::cin.clear();
    std::cin.ignore(1000,'\n');
    loop = true;          
  }
} while(loop);

std::cout << "your number is " << i;

我看到了这些差异:

需要嵌套的{}块(尽管do{…}而看起来更熟悉) 需要额外的循环变量，在四个地方使用 阅读和理解带有循环的工作需要更长的时间 循环不保存任何数据，它只是控制执行的流程，这比简单的标签更难理解

还有一个例子

void sort(int* array, int length) {
SORT:
  for(int i=0; i<length-1; ++i) if(array[i]>array[i+1]) {
    swap(data[i], data[i+1]);
    goto SORT; // it is very easy to understand this code, right?
  }
}

现在让我们摆脱“邪恶”的goto:

void sort(int* array, int length) {
  bool seemslegit;
  do {
    seemslegit = true;
    for(int i=0; i<length-1; ++i) if(array[i]>array[i+1]) {
      swap(data[i], data[i+1]);
      seemslegit = false;
    }
  } while(!seemslegit);
}

你看，这是使用goto的同一类型，它是结构良好的模式，它不像唯一推荐的方式那样转发goto。你肯定想避免这样的“智能”代码:

void sort(int* array, int length) {
  for(int i=0; i<length-1; ++i) if(array[i]>array[i+1]) {
    swap(data[i], data[i+1]);
    i = -1; // it works, but WTF on the first glance
  }
}

关键是goto很容易被误用，但goto本身不应该受到指责。注意，在c++中，label有函数作用域，所以它不会像纯汇编那样污染全局作用域，在纯汇编中，重叠循环有它的位置，而且非常常见——比如下面8051的代码，其中7段显示连接到P1。该程序循环闪电段周围:

; P1 states loops
; 11111110 <-
; 11111101  |
; 11111011  |
; 11110111  |
; 11101111  |
; 11011111  |
; |_________|

init_roll_state:
    MOV P1,#11111110b
    ACALL delay
next_roll_state:
    MOV A,P1
    RL A
    MOV P1,A
    ACALL delay
    JNB P1.5, init_roll_state
    SJMP next_roll_state

还有一个优点:goto可以作为命名循环、条件和其他流:

if(valid) {
  do { // while(loop)

// more than one page of code here
// so it is better to comment the meaning
// of the corresponding curly bracket

  } while(loop);
} // if(valid)

或者你可以使用等效的goto和缩进，所以如果你明智地选择标签名称，你不需要注释:

if(!valid) goto NOTVALID;
  LOOPBACK:

// more than one page of code here

  if(loop) goto LOOPBACK;
NOTVALID:;

如果有，为什么?

C语言没有多级/标记的中断，并不是所有的控制流都可以用C语言的迭代和决策原语轻松建模。Gotos对纠正这些缺陷大有帮助。

有时使用某种类型的标志变量来实现一种伪多级中断更清晰，但它并不总是优于goto(至少goto可以轻松地确定控制的位置，不像标志变量)，有时您只是不想为了避免goto而付出旗帜/其他扭曲的性能代价。

Libavcodec是一段性能敏感的代码。控制流的直接表达可能是优先考虑的，因为它往往会运行得更好。

我遇到过goto是一个很好的解决方案的情况，我在这里或其他地方都没有看到过这个例子。

我有一个开关的情况下，所有的情况都需要调用相同的函数在最后。我有其他的情况，最后都需要调用不同的函数。

这看起来有点像这样:

switch( x ) {
    
    case 1: case1() ; doStuffFor123() ; break ;
    case 2: case2() ; doStuffFor123() ; break ;
    case 3: case3() ; doStuffFor123() ; break ;
    
    case 4: case4() ; doStuffFor456() ; break ;
    case 5: case5() ; doStuffFor456() ; break ;
    case 6: case6() ; doStuffFor456() ; break ;
    
    case 7: case7() ; doStuffFor789() ; break ;
    case 8: case8() ; doStuffFor789() ; break ;
    case 9: case9() ; doStuffFor789() ; break ;
}

我没有给每个case一个函数调用，而是用goto代替了break。goto跳转到一个标签，这也是在开关的情况下。

switch( x ) {
    
    case 1: case1() ; goto stuff123 ;
    case 2: case2() ; goto stuff123 ;
    case 3: case3() ; goto stuff123 ;
    
    case 4: case4() ; goto stuff456 ;
    case 5: case5() ; goto stuff456 ;
    case 6: case6() ; goto stuff456 ;
    
    case 7: case7() ; goto stuff789 ;
    case 8: case8() ; goto stuff789 ;
    case 9: case9() ; goto stuff789 ;
    
    stuff123: doStuffFor123() ; break ;
    stuff456: doStuffFor456() ; break ;
    stuff789: doStuffFor789() ; break ;
}

案例1到3都必须调用doStuffFor123()，类似的案例4到6必须调用doStuffFor456()等。

在我看来，如果你正确使用它们，gotos是非常好的。最后，任何代码都像人们写的那样清晰。有了gotos，你可以写出意大利面代码，但这并不意味着gotos是意大利面代码的原因。这个事业就是我们;程序员。如果我愿意，我也可以用函数创建意大利面条代码。宏也是如此。

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。