[LLVMdev] Void values

[Chris Lattner]

On Jun 11, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm interested in adding support for void values (i.e. unit types) to 
> LLVM. Currently, "void" is only allowed as the return value of a 
> function, and numerous assertions are in place to check this.
> 
> This document [1] that Google pulled up seems to suggest that this idea 
> was planned:
> 
>> Finally, one annoying, but trivial, nuance of the LLVM type-system is
>> the 'void' type, which is only currently allowed as the return value
>> of a function. Special cases like this should be eliminated.
> 
> Is this still the case, and if so, is there any work being done on this 
> already?

Hi Patrick,

I don't know of anyone working on it, but I'd really like to eliminate void.  It doesn't seem like a useful feature of the type system.  Functions can be changed to return {} for example.

-Chris