On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 07:12:24 GMT, Shawn Emery <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Isn't the inclusive range permitted? >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/e1502b52f099c37c9c2fd2aad147dec95ff685b0/src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/ML_KEM.java#L1553 > > Ha, yes, shortly after submitting my response I noticed that the wrong term > was used, but didn't go back to edit the comment as I was confident that > folks would know what I meant to say. In regards to inclusive vs. exclusive > `q`; yes, I stand corrected, as Barrett reduction would reduce coefficients > that are a positive multiple of -3329 to 3329. I had forgot that the > coefficients were signed which would allow for an inclusive `q`. Please > disregard this comment and sorry for the noise. Note: I surmise that Ferenc > used signed coefficients due to better centering (reduction in reductions ;) > and support in intrinsics, thereby eliminating normalization instructions. All good, thanks for checking. May I have a re-approval? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32295#discussion_r3773520512
