You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
No, this was not fixed by the NTL wrapper rewrite. NTL still needs to be actually used internally by FiniteField. This ticket requires two new implementations. GF(pn) for p < (sizeof(long)<<3) and for p >= (sizeof(long)<<3). These are different classes in NTL and should both be wrapped.
Activity
sagetrac-mabshoff commentedon Oct 27, 2007
Hmm, could this have been fixed by the NTL wrapper rewrite?
Cheers,
Michael
malb commentedon Oct 30, 2007
No, this was not fixed by the NTL wrapper rewrite. NTL still needs to be actually used internally by
FiniteField. This ticket requires two new implementations. GF(pn) for p < (sizeof(long)<<3) and for p >= (sizeof(long)<<3). These are different classes in NTL and should both be wrapped.sagetrac-johanbosman commentedon Aug 18, 2011
Replying to @malb:
I completely agree. How much work has been done on this yet and how much work still needs to be done?
malb commentedon Aug 18, 2011
I don't think anybody worked on this much. GF(2e) was switched to NTL, but nothing else happened.
However, the GF(2e) should be a reasonable starting point for doing other fields (word-sized primes and general primes).
Also, we should eventually move sparse moduli interally but that's for another project :)
Add CodeQL workflow for GitHub code scanning (sagemath#417)