Skip to content

Tracking Issue for const stability of unsigned bigint helpersΒ #152015

Description

@clarfonthey

Feature gate: #![feature(bigint_helper_methods)] (for now)

This is a tracking issue for the const stability of the bigint helper methods added in 1.91.0.

Public API

impl uN {
    const fn carrying_add(self, rhs: uN, carry: bool) -> (uN, bool);
    const fn borrowing_sub(self, rhs: uN, borrow: bool) -> (uN, bool);
    const fn carrying_mul(self, rhs: uN, carry: uN) -> (uN, uN);
    const fn carrying_mul_add(self, rhs: uN, carry: uN, add: uN) -> (uN, uN);
}

Steps / History

(Remember to update the S-tracking-* label when checking boxes.)

Notes

These were originally not stabilised as part of the original per @scottmcm:

I did not const-stabilize them in this PR because the fallbacks are using #[const_trait] plus there's two new intrinsics involved, so I didn't want to also open those cans of worms here. Given that both intrinsics have fallbacks, and thus don't do anything that can't already be expressed in existing Rust, const-stabilizing these should be straight-forward once the underlying machinery is allowed on stable. But that doesn't need to keep these from being usable at runtime in the mean time.

Note that at minimum, a T-lang FCP would be needed on a stabilization PR to accept the const-stabilization of those intrinsics. Additionally, we will probably be blocked on #[const_trait] being stable unless there's a blessing from at least a few folks involved to stabilize these methods regardless.

Unresolved Questions

  • None yet.

Activity

  1. added
    T-libs-api[DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE]
    C-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC
    on Feb 2, 2026
  2. clarfonthey commented on Feb 2, 2026

    @clarfonthey
    ContributorAuthor

    @rustbot -S-tracking-unimplemented

  3. scottmcm commented on Feb 3, 2026

    @scottmcm
    Member

    @tgross35 had mentioned (#85532 (comment)) potentially being interested in doing the stabilization work for this?

    (I don't have it on my not-actually-written-down list right now, FWIW.)

  4. added a commit that references this issue on Feb 3, 2026
  5. tgross35 commented on Feb 3, 2026

    @tgross35
    Member

    @tgross35 had mentioned (#85532 (comment)) potentially being interested in doing the stabilization work for this?

    I didn't mean me πŸ˜† just that I don't think we're blocked on anything here if anyone wants to push it forward.

  6. added a commit that references this issue on Feb 3, 2026
  7. added
    T-libsRelevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
    and removed
    T-libs-api[DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE]
    on Aug 12, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    C-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCS-tracking-unimplementedStatus: The feature has not been implemented.T-libsRelevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions