On Thursday, August 20th, 2026 at 6:24 PM, Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>

>

> On 19 August 2026 10:23:20 BST, Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D4444R0.html
> >
> >Hey folks! Matt Borland, Christopher Kormanyos, and I are working on
> >bringing arbitrary-precision integers to C++29. We now have a D4444R0 draft
> >of a paper that should be in the next mailing.
> >
> >We could really use some feedback so that the published R0 is as polished
> >as possible. Any thoughts on the paper and on the reference implementation
> >are greatly appreciated. (https://github.com/eisenwave/std-big-int/)
> >
>

> In https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D4444R0.html#soo-customization you write:
>

> "on 32-bit platforms, the capacity could be lowered to 32 or raised to 64 to prefer performance or correctness"
>

> What is meant by correctness here? Changing the SBO size shouldn't affect correctness of the program, I believe, as the high level semantics of the big int type doesn't change (unlike choosing a different width for a fixed width integer type).
>


Thanks for pointing this out, we'll fix the wording. You are correct that there are no effects on correctness by changing the SBO size.


Matt