I don't think there's anything wrong with project_model depending on
proc_macro_api directly -- fundamentally, both are about gluing our pure
data model to the messy outside world.
However, it's easy enough to avoid the dependency, so why not.
As an additional consideration, `proc_macro_api` now pulls in `base_db`.
project_model should definitely not depend on that!
cargo llvm-lines shows that path_to_error bloats the code. I don't think
I've needed this functionality recently, seems that we've fixed most of
the serialization problems. So let's just remove it. Should be easy to
add back if we ever need it, and it does make sense to keep the
`from_json` function around.
Today, rust-analyzer (and rustc, and bat, and IntelliJ) fail badly on
some kinds of maliciously constructed code, like a deep sequence of
nested parenthesis.
"Who writes 100k nested parenthesis" you'd ask?
Well, in a language with macros, a run-away macro expansion might do
that (see the added tests)! Such expansion can be broad, rather than
deep, so it bypasses recursion check at the macro-expansion layer, but
triggers deep recursion in parser.
In the ideal world, the parser would just handle deeply nested structs
gracefully. We'll get there some day, but at the moment, let's try to be
simple, and just avoid expanding macros with unbalanced parenthesis in
the first place.
closes#9358
9453: Add first-class limits. r=matklad,lnicola a=rbartlensky
Partially fixes#9286.
This introduces a new `Limits` structure which is passed as an input
to `SourceDatabase`. This makes limits accessible almost everywhere in
the code, since most places have a database in scope.
One downside of this approach is that whenever you query limits, you
essentially do an `Arc::clone` which is less than ideal.
Let me know if I missed anything, or would like me to take a different approach!
Co-authored-by: Robert Bartlensky <bartlensky.robert@gmail.com>
Our project model code is rather complicated -- the logic for lowering
from `cargo metadata` to `CrateGraph` is fiddly and special-case. So
far, we survived without testing this at all, but this increasingly
seems like a poor option.
So this PR introduces a simple tests just to detect the most obvious
failures. The idea here is that, although we rely on external processes
(cargo & rustc), we are actually using their stable interfaces, so we
might just mock out the outputs.
Long term, I would like to try to virtualize IO here, so as to do such
mocking in a more principled way, but lets start simple.
Should we forgo the mocking and just call `cargo metadata` directly
perhaps? Touch question -- I personally feel that fast, in-process tests
are more important in this case than any extra assurance we get from
running the real thing.
Super-long term, we would probably want to extend our heavy tests to
cover more use-cases, but we should figure a way to do that without
slowing the tests down for everyone.
Perhaps we need two-tiered bors system, where we pull from `master` into
`release` branch only when an additional set of tests passes?
Moving tests to `rust-analyzer` crate allows removing walkdir dependency
from `xtask`. It does seem more reasonable to keep tidy tests outside of
the "build system" and closer to other integration tests.
* Keep codegen adjacent to the relevant crates.
* Remove codgen deps from xtask, speeding-up from-source installation.
This regresses the release process a bit, as it now needs to run the
tests (and, by extension, compile the code).
9204: feat: more accurate memory usage info on glibc Linux r=jonas-schievink a=jonas-schievink
This adds support for the new `mallinfo2` API added in glibc 2.33. It addresses a shortcoming in the `mallinfo` API where it was unable to handle memory usage of more than 2 GB, which we sometimes exceed.
Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/2228
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
9192: internal: Build test-macros in a build script r=jonas-schievink a=jonas-schievink
This build the test-proc-macros in `proc_macro_test` in a build script, and copies the artifact to `OUT_DIR`. This should make it available throughout all of rust-analyzer at no cost other than depending on `proc_macro_test`, fixing https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/9067.
This hopefully will let us later write inline tests that utilize proc macros, which makes my life fixing proc macro bugs easier.
Opening this as a sort of RFC, because I'm not totally sure this approach is the best.
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
8866: Update salsa r=matklad a=jonas-schievink
This updates salsa to include https://github.com/salsa-rs/salsa/pull/265, and removes all cancellation-related code from rust-analyzer
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
According to the spec we should return ServerNotInitialized if the server is waiting for an initialize request and something else comes in.
Upgrading to lsp-server 0.5.1 will do this and retry until the initialize request comes in.
Fixes#8581
8570: Flycheck tries to parse both Cargo and Rustc messages. r=rickvanprim a=rickvanprim
This change allows non-Cargo build systems to be used for Flycheck provided they call `rustc` with `--error-format=json` and emit those JSON messages to `stdout`.
Co-authored-by: James Leitch <rickvanprim@gmail.com>
reading both stdout & stderr is a common gotcha, you need to drain them
concurrently to avoid deadlocks. Not sure why I didn't do the right
thing from the start. Seems like I assumed the stderr is short? That's
not the case when cargo spams `compiling xyz` messages
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.
6822: Read version of rustc that compiled proc macro r=edwin0cheng a=jsomedon
Signed-off-by: Jay Somedon <jay.somedon@outlook.com>
This PR is to fix#6174.
I basically
* added two methods, `read_version` and `read_section`(used by `read_version`)
* two new crates `snap` and `object` to be used by those two methods
I just noticed that some part of code were auto-reformatted by rust-analyzer on file save. Does it matter?
Co-authored-by: Jay Somedon <jay.somedon@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
