Issue #20917 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Indeed, it seems like a bug, I think as well the "redo jump/unwind/exception" should run ensure's and get to the "break jump/unwind/exception" which should override the `redo` like when a Ruby exception overrides another. FWIW, this is `0 1 2 3 4` on both TruffleRuby and JRuby. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20917: redo/next in nested begin block causes wrong order of execution https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20917#change-110779 * Author: hoshiumiarata (Arata Hoshiumi) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.3.5 (2024-09-03 revision ef084cc8f4) [x86_64-darwin24] * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- It seems that `redo`/`next` in a nested `begin` block can cause the wrong order of execution. For example: ```ruby for _ in [0] puts 0 begin puts 1 begin puts 2 redo ensure puts 3 end ensure puts 4 break end end ``` It prints: ``` 0 1 2 3 4 3 4 => nil ``` But I think it should print: ``` 0 1 2 3 4 => nil ``` Because execution order should be: 1. `puts 0` 2. `puts 1` 3. `puts 2` 4. `redo` 5. unwind to nested `ensure` block 6. `puts 3` 7. unwind to outer `ensure` block 8. `puts 4` 9. `break` 10. end of loop Interestingly enough, if we add an empty `rescue` block before any of the `ensure` blocks, then the execution order is correct. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/