Is this a Quality of Implementation issue or something for the standard?   The implementations are meant to provide faster operations for certain sizes like certain powers of 2.   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Hans Åberg via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Di 13.01.2026 14:44 Betreff:Re: [std-proposals] Modular integers An:David Brown <david.brown_at_[hidden]>; CC:Hans Åberg <haberg_1_at_[hidden]>; std-proposals_at_[hidden]; > On 13 Jan 2026, at 14:41, David Brown <david.brown_at_[hidden]> wrote: > > On 13/01/2026 14:34, Hans Åberg via Std-Proposals wrote: >> There might be support for modular integers int_mod<m> ≔ ℤ/mℤ for a modulus m that fits into a fixed-sized word, say 4096 bits for use in cryptology, m ≤ 2⁴⁰⁹⁶. With recursive templates, like those I have written, for fixed-size unsigned integral types up to uint4096_t, it should not be difficult to implement. > > "unsigned _BitInt(4096)" will give you that.  That is already part of C23, and I believe it is coming to C++, though I don't know the current status off-hand. It is too slow. -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals