search for: constantdataus

...etc.) I hadn't considered that, and it seems worth thinking about. I'm unsure whether using isa<>() would really be cleaner than using Value::hasUseList; and it would certainly be intrusive. Do you see any concrete benefits? One possible long-term thing (after #4)... we could add ConstantDataUser (vs. User), which can only reference a Constant-with-no-GlobalValue, and has operands the size of a pointer. Obviously nice to save on operand-size, but I'm not convinced it would save sufficient memory to be worthwhile: IIRC, Instruction accounts for most instances of User. > — > Me...

r261464 added a type called ConstantData to the Value hierarchy. This is a parent type for constants with no operands, such as i32 0 and null. Since then, I've removed most instances of iterating through the use-lists of an instance of ConstantData. I'd like to make this illegal. Since the users of ConstantData are spread across an LLVMContext, most code that looks at the users is