I think the only reason we're talking about labeled break/continue right now this month is that WG14 is still debating the syntax with which to add labeled break/continue.

There's the accepted proposal N3355 "Named loops", which is the usual labeled-loop syntax we're all used to; but then there's also a proposal (again targeting C, not C++ yet) N3377 "An Improved Syntax for N3355", which proposes a different syntax for the entire feature. The latter syntax doesn't use `FOO:`-style labels; it uses a new kind of thing that can't be targeted by `goto`. Hence the discussion of `goto` in this context.

More background on the `goto` thing: C++ has supported loops, break, continue, and (more to the point) `switch` in constexpr evaluation mode since C++14. C++ has never supported `goto` in constexpr. As Richard Hodges said, this isn't for any deep technical reason; it's because "goto is bad". (See N4472 "constexpr goto" (2015), this SO answer from Barry Revzin (2017), etc.)  That's relevant to the labeled-loop-syntax discussion because one of the arguments against the N3355 syntax is: "If we allow people to write FOO: before a loop, then that might be a gateway drug to writing `goto FOO`. Gotos are bad. We need a way to write labels that you can't `goto` to."

So (as I understand it) Richard was challenging the framing assumption there, by saying, hey, goto isn't bad after all — or at least not so bad that we need to be constantly guarding the wall against it.

And (and I understand it) Avi was pointing out that someone who really wants to guard the wall against `goto` could just implement `-Wgoto` in their compiler and then turn it on as an error. Ta-da, no more use of `goto`! (This hypothetical `-Wgoto` would be similar to existing diagnostics like `-Wvla` and my own Quuxplusone/Clang's `-Wctad`. AFAIK, no existing compiler implements `-Wgoto` today.)

–Arthur