On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 23:26:56 GMT, Anthony Scarpino <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 0 as number of limbs doesn't make sense as no number can be represented that >> way. I think the IntegerPolynomialModBinP class was created for testing >> purposes mainly and only the two inner classes should subclass it, i.e. the >> constructor should rather be private and in that case the 0 number of limbs >> would not be a concern. @ascarpino, do you remember what this class was made >> for and whether it is obsolete now? > > Perhaps the `Curve25519OrderField` and `Curve448OrderField` can be refactored > away from `IntegerPolynomialModBinP`, but I would not suggest that for this > PR. > > I'm ok with changing the constructor to be private, but it's not accessible > from the public API, so it's not a necessary change. Ok, so if the only clients can be in this package then I guess that it is very unlikely anyone is ever going pass in an `IntegerPolynomialModBinP` instance with zero limbs. @ferakocz could you add a comment above the declaration of ctr stating that the loop assumes the limb count in ctr is positive. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30941#discussion_r3434590275
