| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
6659: Explain how we get precise spans for diagnostics. r=matklad a=matklad
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| |/
|/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
6645: Publish diagnostics for macro expansion errors r=matklad a=jonas-schievink
This adds 2 new diagnostics, emitted during name resolution:
* `unresolved-proc-macro`, a weak warning that is emitted when a proc macro is supposed to be expanded, but was not provided by the build system. This usually means that proc macro support is turned off, but may also indicate setup issues when using rust-project.json. Being a weak warning, this should help set expectations when users see it, while not being too obstructive. We do not yet emit this for attribute macros though, just custom derives and `!` macros.
* `macro-error`, which is emitted when any macro (procedural or `macro_rules!`) fails to expand due to some error. This is an error-level diagnostic, but currently still marked as experimental, because there might be spurious errors and this hasn't been tested too well.
This does not yet emit diagnostics when expansion in item bodies fails, just for module-level macros.
Known bug: The "proc macro not found" diagnostic points at the whole item for custom derives, it should just point at the macro's name in the `#[derive]` list, but I haven't found an easy way to do that.
Screenshots:
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
| |
`MacroResult` is redundant
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This does not parse macros, it expands a macro and parses the *result*
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
6033: Make name resolution resolve proc macros instead of relying purely on the build system r=matklad a=jonas-schievink
This makes name resolution look at proc-macro declaration attributes like `#[proc_macro_derive]` and defines the right proc macro in the macro namespace, fixing unresolved custom derives like `thiserror::Error` (which can cause false positives, now that we emit diagnostics for unresolved imports).
This works even when proc-macro support is turned off, in which case we fall back to a dummy expander that always returns an error. IMO this is the right way to handle at least the name resolution part of proc. macros, while the *expansion* itself should rely on the build system to build and provide the macro DLL. It does mean that they may go out of sync, but we can provide diagnostics if that happens (something like "could not find macro X in crate Y – ensure that all files of crate Y are saved").
I think it is valuable to be able to reason about proc macros even when we can't expand them, since proc macro expansion can break between Rust releases or users might not want to turn it on for performance reasons. It allows us to provide better diagnostics on any proc macro invocation we're not expanding (like a weak warning that informs the user that proc macro support is turned off, or that it has been disabled because the server crashed).
Fixes https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/5763
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
It handles fn-like macros too, and will handle attribute macros in the
future
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We hit this for redis crate, reported at
Reported at
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/ikfsf8/rustanalyzer_doesnt_work_with_the_redis_crate/
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
