&gt;What&#x27;s your point? If you define a &quot;plain integer addition&quot; to be &quot;wrapping binary two-complement addition&quot;, then there isn&#x27;t, otherwise, there is.<p>I&#x27;m not defining it that way.  I used the word &#x27;plain&#x27; because some instructions are specifically designed to be variants of normal instructions.  It&#x27;s in their name that they do thing abnormally, so they should be discarded when talking about normal behavior.<p>&gt;But the C standard doesn&#x27;t say &quot;+ maps to what you could honestly call plain integer addition&quot; anyway, so it&#x27;s kindof pointless?<p>You originally said: There is no such thing as &quot;+ on x86&quot;. &quot;+&quot; is an operator of the C language.<p>So I was explaining what &quot;+&quot; means in the absence of C rules.<p>+ means addition in general conversation, that&#x27;s basic math and English skills.<p>That it&#x27;s integer addition is obvious from context, because we&#x27;re adding 1 to INT_MAX.<p>And I already explained why I used the word &#x27;plain&#x27;.<p>-<p>There are architectures with normal integer add instructions that do not have twos-complement behavior.  I&#x27;m just not aware of any such instructions on x86.  Can you name one?<p>If there are none, then I am comfortable asserting that &quot;+&quot; on x86 exists and is twos-complement.