[PATCH] D44928: [MC] Pass MCSubtargetInfo to fixupNeedsRelaxation and applyFixup

[Eric Christopher via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

echristo added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: atanasyan.

Taking a quick glance through this I wonder if adding the subtarget to the fragment is necessary since we've got it at encodeInstruction time? I haven't done a thorough look, but I'm concerned we're missing something here.

Thoughts? Also one similar sort of inline comment.



================
Comment at: lib/Target/ARM/MCTargetDesc/ARMAsmBackend.h:22-25
+  // The STI from the target triple the MCAsmBackend was instantiated with
+  // note that MCFragments may have a different local STI that should be
+  // used in preference.
   const MCSubtargetInfo &STI;
----------------
I think we should just rely on a passed in STI wherever necessary and only store module/object level caches here. Also applies to isThumbMode below :)

Thoughts?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D44928