[LLVMdev] Discussion of eliminating the void type

[Dan Gohman]

On May 9, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:

> Hi Dan,
> 
>>> there's a difference between users of LLVM (which you discuss here)
>>> and developers of LLVM (people writing transforms etc).  I agree
>>> that for users it just changes one oddity for another.  However for
>>> developers it should make things simpler by making the IR more uniform.
>> 
>> As a developer, it would be mildly nice to give stores names.
>> However, that may be more than offset by the fact that store instructions
>> would be able to have users. It'd always be safe to RAUW a store with
>> undef {}, but that's a nuisance.
> 
> at this point I should confess that I was only thinking of function return
> types when talking about void type, and forgot that StoreInst returns a
> type, void type.  How about having getType return null for StoreInst and
> similar?

That sounds like it would be an awkward special case.

Dan