http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-19 00:04:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Actually the MIPS backend does have an UNSPEC 230. It is one of the > > SYMBOL_64_* unspecs. > > Then, why is symbol_type not defined within define_c_enum "unspec"? > That'd make the dumps easier to interpret, the name will be printed... These unspecs don't show up at all in the .md file and it looks like Richard S. did not change how the ADDRESS unspecs were handled when he implemented define_c_enum in the first place: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg01180.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg02353.html
