(This paper is probably not related to US062.)

See in EWG Prague Monday afternoon.

Option 1: Call align_val_t allocation function if available for over aligned coroutine frames

Option 2: Always prefer calling align_val_t allocations regardless of alignment requirement

Option 3: Only call align_val_t allocation functions

Consensus on option 3 only.

Lewis to come back to EWG with an updated paper with option 3.

EWG Prague on Tuesday morning.

Same polls as last time, with the updated information.

Option 3: Only call align_val_t allocation functions

Option 2: Always prefer calling align_val_t allocations regardless of alignment requirement

Option 1: Call align_val_t allocation function if available for over aligned coroutine frames

No consensus for change.

One of the authors tells us that the lack of consensus was based on timing for C++20, not on technical merits. Reopening to discuss inclusion for C++26.

This was discussed at the August 18, 2022 EWG Telecon.

No polls were taken, and the authors were encouraged to discuss motivation and implementation options with other implementers, NB comment submitters, and the reflector.

Actually I don't think we need to see this at this phase.

Forward Option 1 from P2014R0 (Prefer align_val_t overload only if overaligned) to CWG for inclusion in C++26.

Result: Consensus

CWG 2023-02-08: Reviewed D2014R2; needs updates.