<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Apr 22, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Lyu Mitnick wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra">Hello Chris,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>The general concept is to replace void with {}. Void is a weird type in that it is only allowed as the return value of functions and as the type of instructions like store. It seems better (though also not particularly high priority) to eliminate it to make the type system more consistent.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br>I also noticed a sentence "We can even make 'Type::VoidTy' be a pointer to '{}' " in notes. Is <br>this idea conflict with replace void with {}?<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div>The wording is confusion, but I meant that the C++ value "VoidTy" (which doesn't even exist anymore) could be a C++ pointer to the IR type object for {}. VoidTy itself would be {}.<div><br></div><div>-Chris<br><div><br></div></div></body></html>