| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Doesn't save much memory (~2 mb), but interning things is generally a
good pattern to follow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Bitflags is generally a good dependency -- it's lightweight, well
maintained and embraced by the ecosystem.
I wonder, however, do we really need it? Doesn't feel like it adds much
to be honest.
|
|
|
|
| |
Very minor savings, only 1 MB or so
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
8048: Fix missing unresolved macro diagnostic in function body r=edwin0cheng a=brandondong
This was an issue I found while working on https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7970.
**Reproduction:**
1. Call a non-existent macro in a function body.
```
fn main() {
foo!();
}
```
2. No diagnostics are raised. An unresolved-macro-call diagnostic is expected.
3. If the macro call is instead outside of the function body, this works as expected.
I believe this worked previously and regressed in https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805.
**Behavior prior to https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805:**
- The unresolved-macro-call diagnostic did not exist. Instead, a macro-error diagnostic would be raised with the text "could not resolve macro [path]".
- This was implemented by adding an error to the error sink (https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805/files#diff-50a326c5ae465bd9b31ee4310186380aa06e4fa1f6b41dbc0aed5bcc656a3cb8L657).
- The error was propagated through https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/1a82af3527e476d52410ff4dfd2fb4c57466abcb/crates/hir_def/src/body.rs#L123 eventually reaching https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/1a82af3527e476d52410ff4dfd2fb4c57466abcb/crates/hir_def/src/body/lower.rs#L569.
**Behavior after:**
- Instead of writing to the error sink, an UnresolvedMacro error is now returned (https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805/files#diff-50a326c5ae465bd9b31ee4310186380aa06e4fa1f6b41dbc0aed5bcc656a3cb8R631).
- The parent caller throws away the error as its function signature is `Option<MacroCallId>` (https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805/files#diff-50a326c5ae465bd9b31ee4310186380aa06e4fa1f6b41dbc0aed5bcc656a3cb8R604).
- We instead now reach the warn condition (https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/1a82af3527e476d52410ff4dfd2fb4c57466abcb/crates/hir_def/src/body.rs#L124) and no diagnostics are created in https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/1a82af3527e476d52410ff4dfd2fb4c57466abcb/crates/hir_def/src/body/lower.rs#L575.
**Fix:**
- Make sure to propagate the UnresolvedMacro error. Report the error using the new unresolved-macro-call diagnostic.
Co-authored-by: Brandon <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Removes the `local_scope` hack from `Expander` in favor of tracking the
`DefMap` in use during body lowering
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently a method only has defaultness if it is a provided trait
method, but this will change when specialisation is available and may
need to become a concept known to hir.
I opted to go for a 'fewest changes' approach given specialisation is
still under development.
|
| |
|
|
|