To me, it seems not much of an advantage not knowing the jump location at compile time. Intel processors don't predict indirect jumps, do they? (don't remember well...)Why not just use setjmp/longjmp? This seems like it has all the advantages of the goto, plus the fact the target is not fixed at compile-time, but can be adjusted by the program as it needs.
I don't really see in what cases it is interesting to have the target modified.
One example is when you call longjmp in a library and you require the caller to have called setjmp previously. This is used in place of exceptions in a lot of C libraries, like libpng for one.
It also means you could programmatically choose where your code goes on error, so you can make decisions at runtime about where you will handle errors; this may make it very easy to enable/disable a debug mode in your program.
You ever try a pink golf ball, Wally? Why, the wind shear on a pink ball alone can take the head clean off a 90 pound midget at 300 yards.
didn't know i would spark such a huge response...
altho i really don't see how it helps readability (doesn't for me anyway) i can see how using it to skip a huge section of if statements (for example) could really speed up the program, and this is something i desperately need in my opengl apps
"uh uh uh, you didn't say the magic word"
-Jurassic Park
why not do this instead? is it really that useful to use goto in this situation?
Code:if(!condition) { if(something) //do something if(something) //do something if(something) //do something if(something) //do something if(something) //do something if(something) //do something if(something) //do something }
"You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter
goto does not speed up anything as far as I know if if-statements are used correctly, except some special cases maybe.
Which is why I never use it. Most of the time I see it being used 'lazily' to solve a problem that can be done with better code....Although we could've done without goto, doing so would've been much more difficult...
Goto is nasty. Those of you who know asm somewhat will already realize that there are about a trillion short jumps and maybe even hundreds of long jumps in your code already. But the whole issue comes down to the fact that C provides other more polished mechanism by which to accomplish what goto does. Goto is hard to trace, hard to debug, ugly, and violates one entry one exit. Jumping to a label in C is assinine and for those of you who blast me for assembly - you are basically adding jumps to the assembly that need not be there.
Try to put the following in asm:
See how the goto requires you to almost use assembly language fall-through in C? Very ugly. One use of goto often requires yet another uglier use of the same.Code:switch (x) { case 1: DoOne();break; case 2: DoTwo();break; case 3: goto Assinine } goto SkipAssinine: Assinine: DoSomethingElse(); SkipAssinine: ContinueWithProgram();
Code:mov eax,[x] cmp eax,1 jne Compare2 call DoOne jmp EndOfCompare ;only here if break is used Compare2: cmp eax,2 jne Compare3 call DoTwo jmp EndOfCompare ;only if break is used Compare3: cmp eax,3 jne EndofCompare jmp Assinine Assinine: call DoSomethingElse ;Fall through to EndOfCompare EndOfCompare: call ContinueWithProgram
