search for: 46ee0e57

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

On Apr 22, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Lyu Mitnick wrote: > 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 > >

...t relation in LLVM. I am wondering to know whether the relation becomes MVT::isVoid corresponding to { } If eliminating void type? Thanks a lot Mitnick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120423/46ee0e57/attachment.html>