[LLVMdev] Discussion of eliminating the void type

[Duncan Sands]

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?

Ciao, Duncan.