[LLVMdev] Integer questions

[OvermindDL1]

> Patches to do the kind of checking you're asking about would be
> welcome :-). I don't think it makes sense to extend the
> Verifier itself here; it's supposed to accept any valid LLVM IR.
> I think a separate CodeGenVerifier might be a good approach
> though, or possibly extending codegen itself with the ability to
> interrupt itself and yield some kind of error status.

And I presume you all are allergic to exceptions, since I have seen
none so far (probably due to help the C bindings and such), return
error codes all over the place then?  If I do any extension on this
(short on time, so good chance I cannot, but if I do) the usual
non-exception style I use is the return value is a status code, the
last argument passed in is an optional std::string* (the return code
gives the basic error reason, the string gives details), anything that
actually needs to be returned are the first arguments as
references/pointers, would that work?