use vec![] instead of Vec::new() + push()
avoid redundant clones
use chars instead of &str for single char patterns in ends_with() and starts_with()
allocate some Vecs with capacity to avoid unneccessary resizing
7994: Speed up mbe matching in heavy recursive cases r=edwin0cheng a=edwin0cheng
In some cases (e.g. #4186), mbe matching is very slow due to a lot of copy and allocation for bindings, this PR try to solve this problem by introduce a semi "link-list" approach for bindings building.
I used this [test case](https://github.com/weiznich/minimal_example_for_rust_81262) (for `features(32-column-tables)`) to run following command to benchmark:
```
time rust-analyzer analysis-stats --load-output-dirs ./
```
Before this PR : 2 mins
After this PR: 3 seconds.
However, for 64-column-tables cases, we still need 4 mins to complete.
I will try to investigate in the following weeks.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
7211: Fixed expr meta var after path colons in mbe r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
Fixes#7207
Added `L_DOLLAR` in `ITEM_RECOVERY_SET` , but I don't know whether it is a good idea.
r? @matklad
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
7145: Proper handling $crate Take 2 [DO NOT MERGE] r=edwin0cheng a=edwin0cheng
Similar to previous PR (#7133) , but improved the following things :
1. Instead of storing the whole `ExpansionInfo`, we store a similar but stripped version `HygieneInfo`.
2. Instread of storing the `SyntaxNode` (because every token we are interested are IDENT), we store the `TextRange` only.
3. Because of 2, we now can put it in Salsa.
4. And most important improvement: Instead of computing the whole frames every single time, we compute it recursively through salsa: (Such that in the best scenario, we only need to compute the first layer of frame)
```rust
let def_site = db.hygiene_frame(info.def.file_id);
let call_site = db.hygiene_frame(info.arg.file_id);
HygieneFrame { expansion: Some(info), local_inner, krate, call_site, def_site }
```
The overall speed compared to previous PR is much faster (65s vs 45s) :
```
[WITH old PR]
Database loaded 644.86ms, 284mi
Crates in this dir: 36
Total modules found: 576
Total declarations: 11153
Total functions: 8715
Item Collection: 15.78s, 91562mi
Total expressions: 240721
Expressions of unknown type: 2635 (1%)
Expressions of partially unknown type: 2064 (0%)
Type mismatches: 865
Inference: 49.84s, 250747mi
Total: 65.62s, 342310mi
rust-analyzer -q analysis-stats . 66.72s user 0.57s system 99% cpu 1:07.40 total
[WITH this PR]
Database loaded 665.83ms, 284mi
Crates in this dir: 36
Total modules found: 577
Total declarations: 11188
Total functions: 8743
Item Collection: 15.28s, 84919mi
Total expressions: 241229
Expressions of unknown type: 2637 (1%)
Expressions of partially unknown type: 2064 (0%)
Type mismatches: 868
Inference: 30.15s, 135293mi
Total: 45.43s, 220213mi
rust-analyzer -q analysis-stats . 46.26s user 0.74s system 99% cpu 47.294 total
```
*HOWEVER*, it is still a perf regression (35s vs 45s):
```
[WITHOUT this PR]
Database loaded 657.42ms, 284mi
Crates in this dir: 36
Total modules found: 577
Total declarations: 11177
Total functions: 8735
Item Collection: 12.87s, 72407mi
Total expressions: 239380
Expressions of unknown type: 2643 (1%)
Expressions of partially unknown type: 2064 (0%)
Type mismatches: 868
Inference: 22.88s, 97889mi
Total: 35.74s, 170297mi
rust-analyzer -q analysis-stats . 36.71s user 0.63s system 99% cpu 37.498 total
```
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
