[LLVMdev] Discussion of eliminating the void type

[Evan Cheng]

I have to confess that I find the whole idea crazy. It seems a lot of pain for everyone for very little gain.

Evan

On May 9, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:

>>>>> 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