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。

c++标准有: 可以将其转移到块中，但不能绕过带有初始化的声明。如果一个程序从一个具有自动存储持续时间的局部变量不在作用域中的点跳转到它在作用域中的点，那么该程序就是病态形式的，除非该变量具有POD类型(3.9)，并且声明时没有初始化式(8.5)。

说明此规则的代码:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class X {
  public:
    X() 
    {
     cout << "constructor" << endl;
    }
    ~X() 
    {
     cout << "destructor" << endl;
    }
};

template <class type>
void ill_formed()
{
  goto lx;
ly:
  type a;
lx:
  goto ly;
}

template <class type>
void ok()
{
ly:
  type a;
lx:
  goto ly;
}

void test_class()
{
  ok<X>();
  // compile error
  ill_formed<X>();
}

void test_scalar() 
{
  ok<int>();
  ill_formed<int>();
}

int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) 
{
  return 0;
}

显示初始化器效果的代码:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int test1()
{
  int i = 0;
  // There jumps fo "case 1" and "case 2"
  switch(i) {
    case 1:
      // Compile error because of the initializer
      int r = 1; 
      break;
    case 2:
      break;
  };
}

void test2()
{
  int i = 2;
  switch(i) {
    case 1:
      int r;
      r= 1; 
      break;
    case 2:
      cout << "r: " << r << endl;
      break;
  };
}

int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) 
{
  test1();
  test2();
  return 0;
}

我最喜欢的邪恶切换技巧是使用if(0)跳过不需要的case标签。

switch(val)
{
case 0:
// Do something
if (0) {
case 1:
// Do something else
}
case 2:
// Do something in all cases
}

但非常邪恶。

有趣的是，这很好:

switch (i)  
{  
case 0:  
    int j;  
    j = 7;  
    break;  

case 1:  
    break;
}

．.． 但这不是:

switch (i)  
{  
case 0:  
    int j = 7;  
    break;  

case 1:  
    break;
}

我得到一个修复足够简单，但我不明白为什么第一个例子不打扰编译器。正如之前所提到的(2年前的呵呵)，声明不是导致错误的原因，即使有逻辑。初始化是问题所在。如果变量在不同的行上被初始化和声明，它将被编译。

如果你开始一个新块，你可以在switch语句中声明变量:

switch (thing)
{ 
  case A:
  {
    int i = 0;  // Completely legal
  }
  break;
}

原因是与在堆栈上分配(和回收)空间以存储局部变量有关。

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;"