P2014 R2 Proposed resolution for US061/US062 - aligned allocation of coroutine frames

[wg21bot]

P2014R0 Proposed resolution for US061/US062 - aligned allocation of coroutine frames (Lewis Baker, Gor Nishanov)

[jensmaurer]

(This paper is probably not related to US062.)

[jfbastien]

See in EWG Prague Monday afternoon.

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

SF	F	N	A	SA
3	7	4	3	2

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

SF	F	N	A	SA
4	8	2	5	1

Option 3: Only call align_val_t allocation functions

SF	F	N	A	SA
5	12	0	4	1

Consensus on option 3 only.

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

[jfbastien]

EWG Prague on Tuesday morning.

Same polls as last time, with the updated information.

Option 3: Only call align_val_t allocation functions

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	0	2	10	6

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

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	0	2	13	4

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

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	8	5	2	3

No consensus for change.

[jfbastien]

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.