While working on some SpiderMonkey JIT compiler optimisations, I was wondering if it makes sense to change ToInteger(-0) to return +0 instead of -0, because in all but one case, the result of ToInteger(-0) is either explicitly or implicitly changed from -0 to +0 anyway.

Example for implicit conversion from String.prototype.startsWith:

• An implicit conversion through the mathematical function max.

7. If endPosition is undefined, let pos be len; else let pos be ? ToInteger(endPosition).
8. Let end be min(max(pos, 0), len).

And from String.prototype.charAt:

• An implicit conversion because -0 is treated the same as +0 for index positions.

3. Let position be ? ToInteger(pos).
   ...
4. Return the String value of length 1, containing one code unit from S, namely the code unit at index position.

And from Array.prototype.includes:

• Implicit conversion, because ToString(-0) = ToString(+0) = "0" holds.

4. Let n be ? ToInteger(fromIndex).
   ...
5. If n ≥ 0, then
   a. Let k be n.
   ...
6. Repeat, while k < len
   a. Let elementK be the result of ? Get(O, ! ToString(k)).

Example for explicit conversion from Array.prototype.indexOf:

4. Let n be ? ToInteger(fromIndex).
   ...
5. If n ≥ 0, then
   a. If n is -0, let k be +0; else let k be n.

Or TimeClip:

3. Let clippedTime be ! ToInteger(time).
4. If clippedTime is -0, set clippedTime to +0.

The only place where changing ToInteger(-0) to return +0 instead of -0 would make a difference, is Atomics.store:

3. Let v be ? ToInteger(value).
   ...
4. Return v.

So, changing ToInteger(-0) return +0 would allow to remove some explicit -0 to +0 conversions in various operations, but also result in a noticeable change for Atomics.store, (which we could avoid if necessary, but I'm not actually sure anyone would really notice the difference for that function when +0 instead of -0 would be returned.) Does it sound useful to anyone else to make this change?