> The INT_MIN value need not have an additive inverse because of a quirk in two's complement.

For comparison, in Java, these 3 expressions each yield Integer.MIN_VALUE (i.e. -2147483648):

    -Integer.MIN_VALUE
    Integer.MIN_VALUE * -1
    Integer.MIN_VALUE / -1

I have to admit I expected all 3 to throw.

edit On reflection I shouldn't have expected that, I recall reading John Regehr's blog post on the downsides of how Java defaults to wrapping behaviour: https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1401