Have Derive Attribute share a token tree with it's proc macros.
The goal of this PR is to stop creating a token tree for each derive proc macro.
This is done by giving the derive proc macros an id to its parent derive element.
From running the analysis stat on the rust analyzer project I did see a small memory decrease.
```
Inference: 42.80s, 362ginstr, 591mb
MIR lowering: 8.67s, 67ginstr, 291mb
Mir failed bodies: 18 (0%)
Data layouts: 85.81ms, 609minstr, 8mb
Failed data layouts: 135 (6%)
Const evaluation: 440.57ms, 5235minstr, 13mb
Failed const evals: 1 (0%)
Total: 64.16s, 552ginstr, 1731mb
```
After Change
```
Inference: 40.32s, 340ginstr, 593mb
MIR lowering: 7.95s, 62ginstr, 292mb
Mir failed bodies: 18 (0%)
Data layouts: 87.97ms, 591minstr, 8mb
Failed data layouts: 135 (6%)
Const evaluation: 433.38ms, 5226minstr, 14mb
Failed const evals: 1 (0%)
Total: 60.49s, 523ginstr, 1680mb
```
Currently this breaks the expansion for the actual derive attribute.
## TODO
- [x] Pick a better name for the function `smart_macro_arg`
Add more methods for resolving definitions from AST to their corresponding HIR types
In order to be able to add these methods with consistent naming I had to also rename two existing methods that would otherwise be conflicting/confusing:
`Semantics::to_module_def(&self, file: FileId) -> Option<Module>` (before)
`Semantics::file_to_module_def(&self, file: FileId) -> Option<Module>` (after)
`Semantics::to_module_defs(&self, file: FileId) -> impl Iterator<Item = Module>` (before)
`Semantics::file_to_module_defs(&self, file: FileId) -> impl Iterator<Item = Module>` (after)
(the PR is motivated by an outside use of the `ra_ap_hir` crate that would benefit from being able to walk a `hir::Function`'s AST, resolving its exprs/stmts/items to their HIR equivalents)
Export `SemanticsImpl` from `ra_ap_hir` crate, since it's already exposed via `Semantics.deref()`
The `SemanticsImpl` type is already de-facto exposed via `<Semantics as Deref>::Target`.
By not being part of the public crate interface it however doesn't get included in the documentation, resulting in a massive blind spot when it comes to `ra_ap_hir`'s type resolution APIs.
Add public function for resolving callable AST exprs to their HIR equivalents
(the PR is motivated by an outside use of the `ra_ap_hir` crate that would benefit from being able to walk a `hir::Function`'s AST, resolving callable exprs within to their HIR equivalents)
Derive `PartialEq`, `Eq` & `Hash` for `hir::Param`
Since `hir::SelfParam`, as well as all members of `hir::Param` already implement `PartialEq`, `Eq` & `Hash` it seems reasonable to also make `hir::Param` implement those.
(the change is motivated by an outside use of the `ra_ap_hir` crate that would benefit from being able to collect params in a `HashSet`)
feat: Add "make tuple" tactic to term search
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/16092
Now term search also supports tuples.
```rust
let a: i32 = 1;
let b: f64 = 0.0;
let c: (i32, (f64, i32)) = todo!(); // Finds (a, (b, a))
```
In addition to new tactic that handles tuples I changed how the generics are handled.
Previously it tried all possible options from types we had in scope but now it only tries useful ones that help us directly towards the goal or at least towards calling some other function.
This changes O(2^n) to O(n^2) where n is amount of rounds which in practice allows using types that take generics for multiple rounds (previously limited to 1). Average case that also used to be exponential is now roughly linear.
This means that deeply nested generics also work.
````rust
// Finds all valid combos, including `Some(Some(Some(...)))`
let a: Option<Option<Option<bool>>> = todo!();
````
_Note that although the complexity is smaller allowing more types with generics the search overall slows down considerably. I hope it's fine tho as the autocomplete is disabled by default and for code actions it's not super slow. Might have to tweak the depth hyper parameter tho_
This resulted in a huge increase of results found (benchmarks on `ripgrep` crate):
Before
````
Tail Expr syntactic hits: 149/1692 (8%)
Tail Exprs found: 749/1692 (44%)
Term search avg time: 18ms
```
After
```
Tail Expr syntactic hits: 291/1692 (17%)
Tail Exprs found: 1253/1692 (74%)
Term search avg time: 139ms
````
Most changes are local to term search except some tuple related stuff on `hir::Type`.
performance: Speed up Method Completions By Taking Advantage of Orphan Rules
(Continues https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/16498)
This PR speeds up method completions by doing two things without regressing `analysis-stats`[^1]:
- Filter candidate traits prior to calling `iterate_path_candidates` by relying on orphan rules (see below for a slightly more in-depth explanation). When generating completions [on `slog::Logger`](5e9e59c312/common/src/ledger.rs (L78)) in `oxidecomputer/omicron` as a test, this PR halved my completion times—it's now 454ms cold and 281ms warm. Before this PR, it was 808ms cold and 579ms warm.
- Inline some of the method candidate checks into `is_valid_method_candidate` and remove some unnecessary visibility checks. This was suggested by `@Veykril` in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/16498#issuecomment-1929864427).
We filter candidate traits by taking advantage of orphan rules. For additional details, I'll rely on `@WaffleLapkin's` explanation [from Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/185405-t-compiler.2Frust-analyzer/topic/Trait.20Checking/near/420942417):
> A type `A` can only implements traits which
> 1. Have a blanket implementation (`impl<T> Trait for T {}`)
> 2. Have implementation for `A` (`impl Trait for A {}`)
>
> Blanket implementation can only exist in `Trait`'s crate. Implementation for `A` can only exist in `A`'s or `Trait`'s crate.
Big thanks to Waffle for its keen observation!
---
I think some additional improvements are possible:
- `for_trait_and_self_ty` seemingly does not distinguish between `&T`, `&mut T`, or `T`, resulting in seemingly irrelevant traits like `tokio::io::AsyncWrite` being being included for, e.g., `&slog::Logger`. I don't know they're being considered due to the [autoref/autoderef behavior](a02a219773/crates/hir-ty/src/method_resolution.rs (L945-L962)), but I wonder if it'd make sense to filter by mutability earlier and not consider trait implementations that require `&mut T` when we only have a `&T`.
- The method completions [spend a _lot_ of time in unification](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/185405-t-compiler.2Frust-analyzer/topic/Trait.20Checking/near/421072356), and while there might be low-hanging fruit there, it might make more sense to wait for the new trait solver in `rustc`. I dunno.
[^1]: The filtering occurs outside of typechecking, after all.
fix: Don't panic on synthetic syntax in inference diagnostics
Temporary fix for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/16682
We ought to rethink how we attach diagnostics to things, as IDs don't work for `format_args` like that!
Setup infra for handling auto trait bounds disabled due to perf problems
This patch updates some of the partially-implemented functions of `ChalkContext as RustIrDatabase`, namely `adt_datum()` and `impl_provided_for()`. With those, we can now correctly work with auto trait bounds and distinguish methods based on them.
Resolves#7856 (the second code; the first one is resolved by #13074)
**IMPORTANT**: I don't think we want to merge this until #7637 is resolved. Currently this patch introduces A LOT of unknown types and type mismtaches as shown below. This is because we cannot resolve items like `hashbrown::HashMap` in `std` modules, leading to auto trait bounds on them and their dependents unprovable.
|crate (from `rustc-perf@c52ee6` except for r-a)|e3dc5a588f07d6f1d3a0f33051d4af26190abe9e|HEAD of this branch|
|---|---|---|
|rust-analyzer @ e3dc5a588f |exprs: 417528, ??ty: 907 (0%), ?ty: 114 (0%), !ty: 1|exprs: 417528, ??ty: 1704 (0%), ?ty: 403 (0%), !ty: 20|
|ripgrep|exprs: 62120, ??ty: 2 (0%), ?ty: 0 (0%), !ty: 0|exprs: 62120, ??ty: 132 (0%), ?ty: 58 (0%), !ty: 11|
|webrender/webrender|exprs: 94355, ??ty: 49 (0%), ?ty: 16 (0%), !ty: 2|exprs: 94355, ??ty: 429 (0%), ?ty: 130 (0%), !ty: 7|
|diesel|exprs: 132591, ??ty: 401 (0%), ?ty: 5129 (3%), !ty: 31|exprs: 132591, ??ty: 401 (0%), ?ty: 5129 (3%), !ty: 31|
Abstract more over ItemTreeLoc-like structs
Allows reducing some code duplication by using functions generic over said structs. The diff isn't negative due to me adding some additional impls for completeness.
feat: Add incorrect case diagnostics for traits and their associated items
Updates incorrect case diagnostic to:
- Check traits and their associated items
- Ignore trait implementations except for patterns in associated function bodies
Also cleans up `hir-ty::diagnostics::decl_check` a bit (mostly to make it a bit more DRY and easier to maintain)
Also fixes: #8675 and fixes: #8225
internal: even more `tracing`
As part of profiling completions, I added some additional spans and moved `TyBuilder::subst_for_def` closer to its usage site (the latter had a small impact on completion performance. Thanks for the tip, Lukas!)
This commit also adds `tracing` to NotificationDispatcher/RequestDispatcher,
bumps `rust-analyzer-salsa` to 0.17.0-pre.6, `always-assert` to 0.2, and
removes the homegrown `hprof` implementation in favor of a vendored
tracing-span-tree.
feat: Support for GOTO def from *inside* files included with include! macro
close#14937
Try to implement goto def from *inside* files included with include! macro.
This implementation has two limitations:
1. Only **one** file which calls include! will be tracked. (I think multiple file be included is a rare case and we may let it go for now)
2. Mapping token from included file to macro call file (semantics.rs:646~658) works fine but I am not sure is this the correct way to implement.
internal: Move query limits to the caller
Prior we calculated up to `limit` entries from a query, then filtered from that leaving us with less entries than the limit in some cases (which might give odd completion behavior due to items disappearing). This changes it so we filter before checking the limit.
This commit changes how the expected type is calculated when working
with Fn pointers, making the parenthesis stop vanishing when completing
the function name.
I've been bugged by the behaviour on parenthesis completion for a long
while now. R-a assumes that the `LetStmt` type is the same as the
function type I've just written. Worse is that all parenthesis vanish,
even from functions that have completely different signatures. It will
now verify if the signature is the same.
While working on this, I noticed that record fields behave the same, so
I also made it prioritize the field type instead of the current
expression when possible, but I'm unsure if this is OK, so input is
appreciated.
ImplTraits as return types will still behave weirdly because lowering is
disallowed at the time it resolves the function types.
fix: rewrite code_action `generate_delegate_trait`
I've made substantial enhancements to the "generate delegate trait" code action in rust-analyzer. Here's a summary of the changes:
#### Resolved the "Can’t find CONST_ARG@158..159 in AstIdMap" error
Fix#15804, fix#15968, fix#15108
The issue stemmed from an incorrect application of PathTransform in the original code. Previously, a new 'impl' was generated first and then transformed, causing PathTransform to fail in locating the correct AST node, resulting in an error. I rectified this by performing the transformation before generating the new 'impl' (using make::impl_trait), ensuring a step-by-step transformation of associated items.
#### Rectified generation of `Self` type
`generate_delegate_trait` is unable to properly handle trait with `Self` type.
Let's take the following code as an example:
```rust
trait Trait {
fn f() -> Self;
}
struct B {}
impl Trait for B {
fn f() -> B { B{} }
}
struct S {
b: B,
}
```
Here, if we implement `Trait` for `S`, the type of `f` should be `() -> Self`, i.e. `() -> S`. However we cannot automatically generate a function that constructs `S`.
To ensure that the code action doesn't generate delegate traits for traits with Self types, I add a function named `has_self_type` to handle it.
#### Extended support for generics in structs and fields within this code action
The former version of `generate_delegate_trait` cannot handle structs with generics properly. Here's an example:
```rust
struct B<T> {
a: T
}
trait Trait<T> {
fn f(a: T);
}
impl<T1, T2> Trait<T1> for B<T2> {
fn f(a: T1) -> T2 { self.a }
}
struct A {}
struct S {
b$0 : B<A>,
}
```
The former version will generates improper code:
```rust
impl<T1, T2> Trait<T1, T2> for S {
fn f(&self, a: T1) -> T1 {
<B as Trait<T1, T2>>::f( &self.b , a)
}
}
```
The rewritten version can handle generics properly:
```rust
impl<T1> Trait<T1> for S {
fn f(&self, a: T1) -> T1 {
<B<A> as Trait<T1>>::f(&self.b, a)
}
}
```
See more examples in added unit tests.
I enabled support for generic structs in `generate_delegate_trait` through the following steps (using the code example provided):
1. Initially, to prevent conflicts between the generic parameters in struct `S` and the ones in the impl of `B`, I renamed the generic parameters of `S`.
2. Then, since `B`'s parameters are instantiated within `S`, the original generic parameters of `B` needed removal within `S` (to avoid errors from redundant parameters). An important consideration here arises when Trait and B share parameters in `B`'s impl. In such cases, these shared generic parameters cannot be removed.
3. Next, I addressed the matching of types between `B`'s type in `S` and its type in the impl. Given that some generic parameters in the impl are instantiated in `B`, I replaced these parameters with their instantiated results using PathTransform. For instance, in the example provided, matching `B<A>` and `B<T2>`, where `T2` is instantiated as `A`, I replaced all occurrences of `T2` in the impl with `A` (i.e. apply the instantiated generic arguments to the params).
4. Finally, I performed transformations on each assoc item (also to prevent the initial issue) and handled redundant where clauses.
For a more detailed explanation, please refer to the code and comments. I welcome suggestions and any further questions!
fix: Don't emit "missing items" diagnostic for negative impls
Negative impls can't have items, so there is no reason for this diagnostic.
LMK if I should add a test somewhere. Also LMK if that's not how we usually check multiple things in an if in r-a.
