10181: Begining of lsif r=HKalbasi a=HKalbasi
This PR adds a `lsif` command to cli, which can be used as `rust-analyzer lsif /path/to/project > dump.lsif`. It now generates a valid, but pretty useless lsif (only supports folding ranges). The propose of this PR is to discussing about the structure of lsif generator, before starting anything serious.
cc `@matklad` #8696#3098
Co-authored-by: hamidreza kalbasi <hamidrezakalbasi@protonmail.com>
10105: RfC: Use `todo!()` instead of `()` for missing fields r=jonas-schievink a=jo-so
Most commonly a field of a struct can be initialized with its default value than an empty tuple.
Co-authored-by: Jörg Sommer <joerg@jo-so.de>
10332: minor: Allow overwriting RUST_BACKTRACE for the server manually r=jonas-schievink a=Veykril
Trying to figure out why we aren't getting backtraces for windows builds from CI, this let's one set the backtraces to `FULL`
Might be cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87481
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
With this patch, in these examples
```rust
fn main() {
"⊞$0";
}
```
```rust
struct S {
д$0 u8
}
```
entering ':' character in `$0` places shouldn't cause panics.
The generated code with `()` doesn't compile in most of the cases. To signal
the developer there's something to do, fill in `todo!()`.
Because the file *missing_fields.rs* contains the string `todo!()` it needs
an exception for the test *check_todo*.
When dealing with proc macros, there are two very different kinds of
errors:
* first, usual errors of "proc macro panicked on this particular input"
* second, the proc macro server might day if the user, eg, kills it
First kind of errors are expected and are a normal output, while the
second kind are genuine IO-errors.
For this reason, we use a curious nested result here: `Result<Result<T,
E1>, E2>` pattern, which is 100% inspired by http://sled.rs/errors.html
