[LLVMdev] Discussion of eliminating the void type

[Duncan Sands]

>>>> 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.

Yes, in fact this issue has put me off the whole idea of getting rid of void
type.

Ciao, Duncan.