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@lists.isocpp.org>
Gesendet: Di 13.01.2026 14:44
Betreff: Re: [std-proposals] Modular integers
An: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>;
CC: Hans Åberg <haberg_1@icloud.com>; std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org;

> On 13 Jan 2026, at 14:41, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> 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@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals