[LLVMdev] Eliminating the 'void' type

[Lyu Mitnick]

Hello Chris,

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.
>
> -Chris
>

I also noticed a sentence "We can even make 'Type::VoidTy' be a pointer to
'{}' " in notes. Is
this idea conflict with replace void with {}?

Mitnick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120422/c58b82dd/attachment.html>