Since multiple dylibs can be defined in one TBD, this is
necessary to avoid confusion.
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, oontvoo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97905
Previously, we were loading re-exports without checking whether
they were compatible with our target. Prior to {D97209}, it meant that
we were defining dylib symbols that were invalid -- usually a silent
failure unless our binary actually used them. D97209 exposed this as an
explicit error.
Along the way, I've extended our TAPI compatibility check to cover the
platform as well, instead of just checking the arch. To this end, I've
replaced MachO::Architecture with MachO::Target in our Config struct.
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, oontvoo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97867
Jez Ng