save-analysis: power through bracket mis-counts
Closes#47981
This is pretty unsatisfying since it is working around a span bug. However, I can't track down the span bug and it could be in the parser, proc macro expansion, the user macro, or Syn (or any other library that can manipulate spans). Given that user code can cause this error, I think we need to be more robust here.
r? @eddyb
Closes#47981
This is pretty unsatisfying since it is working around a span bug. However, I can't track down the span bug and it could be in the parser, proc macro expansion, the user macro, or Syn (or any other library that can manipulate spans). Given that user code can cause this error, I think we need to be more robust here.
save-analysis: avoid implicit unwrap
When looking up a field defintion, since the name might be incorrect in the field init shorthand case.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/rls/issues/699
r? @eddyb
add documentation from doc(include) to analysis data
cc #44732
Currently save-analysis only loads docs from plain doc comments and doc attributes. Since `#[doc(include="filename.md")]` doesn't create a plain doc attribute when it loads the file, we need to be sure to pick up this info for the analysis data.
No longer parse it.
Remove AutoTrait variant from AST and HIR.
Remove backwards compatibility lint.
Remove coherence checks, they make no sense for the new syntax.
Remove from rustdoc.
Use DefIndex encoding that works better with on-disk variable length integer representations.
Use the least instead of the most significant bit for representing the address space.
r? @eddyb
Fix nested imports not included in the save_analysis output
This PR fixes#46823.
The bug was caused by the old access level checking code, which checked against the root UseTree even for nested trees. The problem with that is, for nested trees the root is lowered as an empty `ListStem`, which is not reachable by definition. The new code computes the access level with each tree's own ID, and with the root tree's visibility.
I tested this manually and it works, but I'm not really satisfied with that. I looked at the existing tests though, and no one checked for the save_analysis output as far as I can see. How should I proceed with that? I think having a test about this would be really nice.
The Generics now contain one Vec of an enum for the generic parameters,
rather than two separate Vec's for lifetime and type parameters.
Additionally, places that previously used Vec<LifetimeDef> now use
Vec<GenericParam> instead.
