[loeg]

But -1*INT_MIN is still 1 greater than INT_MAX in two's complement ... so that's signed overflow and thus undefined behavior in C.

Assuming x86 signed overflow behavior, you're just back to INT_MIN again? Or am I crazy?

[bdonlan]

The language in question isn't C, so they can have whatever semantics they want.

[loeg]

Sorry, the use of the nym INT_MIN suggested to me that the implementation under the covers was C.

It looks like it was once an interpreter, but is now compiled down to CLR and run with Mono.