[PATCH] D13829: [IR] Move optional data in llvm::Function into a hungoff uselist

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-commits]

> On 2015-Dec-06, at 17:54, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 
> Somehow using `ConstantPointerNull`s here seems really strange to me.
> I don't think we should be adding uses of `ConstantPointerNull` just
> as a placeholder.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm not sure I have a better suggestion.  Can
> someone else give their opinion?  Is this fine?
> 
> (If you can get me shouted down at that point, then this patch LGTM.)
> 
> I think the only other alternative is to have a variable number of operands (with some canonical order
> depending on which of personality/prefix/prologue is actually present), but that seems like it would
> get ugly quickly.

We can always change it later.  The patch LGTM as is then.