// Simple repro. Yet another non-stable sorting problem that we're hitting :(

v = [1, 2];
Object.defineProperty(v, 0xfffe, { value: 3, writable: true});
__PrettyPrint(v.sort(function (index, array){ if (index in array) return ""; }));

// Output:
# Compared x64,ignition with ia32,ignition
#
# Flags of x64,ignition:
--abort_on_stack_overflow --expose-gc --allow-natives-syntax --invoke-weak-callbacks --omit-quit --es-staging --random-seed 732681078 --ignition --turbo-filter=~ --hydrogen-filter=~ --nocrankshaft
# Flags of ia32,ignition:
--abort_on_stack_overflow --expose-gc --allow-natives-syntax --invoke-weak-callbacks --omit-quit --es-staging --random-seed 732681078 --ignition --turbo-filter=~ --hydrogen-filter=~ --nocrankshaft
#
# Difference:
- ./repro.js:4: TypeError: Cannot use 'in' operator to search for '2' in 3
+ ./repro.js:4: TypeError: Cannot use 'in' operator to search for '2' in 1
#
# Source file:
none
#
### Start of configuration x64,ignition:
./repro.js:4: TypeError: Cannot use 'in' operator to search for '2' in 3
__PrettyPrint(v.sort(function (index, array){ if (index in array) return ""; }));
                                                        ^



### End of configuration x64,ignition
#
### Start of configuration ia32,ignition:
./repro.js:4: TypeError: Cannot use 'in' operator to search for '2' in 1
__PrettyPrint(v.sort(function (index, array){ if (index in array) return ""; }));
                                                        ^



### End of configuration ia32,ignition

ClusterFuzz has detected this issue as fixed in range 44025:44026.

Detailed report: https://clusterfuzz.com/testcase?key=4713363830734848

Fuzzer: foozzie_js_mutation
Job Type: v8_foozzie
Platform Id: linux

Crash Type: V8 correctness failure
Crash Address: 
Crash State:
  configs: x64,ignition_turbo:ia32,ignition_turbo
  sources: 1c2
  
Sanitizer: address (ASAN)

Regressed: V8: 43016:43017
Fixed: V8: 44025:44026

Reproducer Testcase: https://clusterfuzz.com/download/AMIfv95zs35S8ZWi9vfc3_MBDhXY2tlQsnM40n-6MBHXkPqgqAGODCHnGXwop3kr74KmlpBlVkLGwPTlJMlYlobx8ZMMRoLINhxgOF4z6deKlf6jR7ML5__OcoXzHX-uMJwsx0cVm1v55eoTgguytssVrSsOsAOQV7OQQknmxhE27d876v_BNEFW792WQcfImW1R57xSc8uXsJ-MMGwFL896owtWLb1ZbxcYz0BP7O2oCKSb5IX7Nf3ePvAC9wick68kyIwViF_TzHqOT8S5hHuJmopkHbO24R8nCgT8gySRFQ1qHv12BjvMmBqF6E9CgEOl41TPg-48A3JhigAxsWe0d_2_-uN4dFsaXXtIrlu8b3BNf05z_DRPLMfCkYj_76Ao4WBRJka6frPxbxi8mJ-Lyp7ibapyjw?testcase_id=4713363830734848


See https://dev.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/bugs/reproducing-clusterfuzz-bugs for more information.

If you suspect that the result above is incorrect, try re-doing that job on the test case report page.

ClusterFuzz testcase 4713363830734848 is verified as fixed, so closing issue.

If this is incorrect, please add ClusterFuzz-Wrong label and re-open the issue.