feat: Use spans for builtin and declarative macro expansion errors
This should generally improve some error reporting for macro expansion errors. Especially for `compile_error!` within proc-macros
feat: add preliminary support for `+ use<..>` `precise_capturing` syntax
## Summary
This PR adds basic support for the following syntax.
```rs
fn captures<'a: 'a, 'b: 'b, T>() -> impl Sized + use<'b, T> {}
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// This opaque type does not capture `'a`.
fn outlives<'o, T: 'o>(_: T) {}
fn caller<'o, 'a, 'b: 'o, T: 'o>() {
// ~~
// ^ Note that we don't need `'a: 'o`.
outlives::<'o>(captures::<'a, 'b, T>());
}
```
Related to #17598
LRU `body_with_source_map` query
This query is being invalidated all the time anyways (we have an extra query on top of it for the body incrementality that is not source dependent), so there is little reason to keep these around all the time when only some IDE features are interested in them.
Prefer standard library paths over shorter extern deps re-exports
This should generally speed up path finding for std items as we no longer bother looking through all external dependencies. It also makes more sense to prefer importing std items from the std dependencies directly.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/17540
Fix path resolution for child mods of those expanded by `include!`
Child modules wouldn't use the correct candidate paths due to a branch that doesn't seem to be doing what it's intended to do. Removing the branch fixes the problem and all existing test cases pass.
Having no knowledge of how any of this works, I believe this fixes#17645. Using another test that writes the included mod directly into `lib.rs` instead, I found the difference can be traced to the candidate files we use to look up mods. A separate branch for if the file comes from an `include!` macro doesn't take into account the original mod we're contained within:
```rust
None if file_id.macro_file().map_or(false, |it| it.is_include_macro(db.upcast())) => {
candidate_files.push(format!("{}.rs", name.display(db.upcast())));
candidate_files.push(format!("{}/mod.rs", name.display(db.upcast())));
}
```
I'm not sure why this branch exists. Tracing the branch back takes us to 3bb9efb but it doesn't say *why* the branch was added. The test case that was added in this commit passes with the branch removed, so I think it's just superfluous at this point.
Child modules wouldn't use the correct candidate paths due to a branch that doesn't seem to be doing what it's intended to do. Removing the branch fixes the problem and all existing test cases pass.
