search for: 24c6683d

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

...value "VoidTy" (which doesn't even exist anymore) could be a C++ pointer to the IR type object for {}. VoidTy itself would be {}. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120422/24c6683d/attachment.html>