[LLVMdev] Discussion of eliminating the void type

[Mitnick]

Hello Duncan, Dan

According to the thread, I am wondering to know  whether the current design is relatively better than getting rid of void type, which means the idea "eliminating the void type" may be removed from LLVM random notes?

Thanks a lot

Mitnick

>>>>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev