[LLVMdev] Discussion of eliminating the void type

[Nick Lewycky]

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

IIRC, part of the point of removing void was so that we could have users 
of store/br/unreachable/etc. and allow the instructions to have names. 
The users would be restricted to being metadata.

Nick

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