Show which roots are being scanned in progress messages
This changes the `Roots Scanned` message to include the directory being scanned.
Before: `Roots Scanned 206/210 (98%)`
After: `Roots Scanned 206/210: .direnv (98%)`
This makes it a lot easier to tell that `rust-analyzer` isn't crashed, it's just trying to scan a huge directory.
See: #12613
internal: Speedup line index calculation via NEON for aarch64
This commit provides SIMD acceleration (via NEON) for `line-index` library on aarch64 architecture, which improves performance for Apple Silicon users (and potentially for future aarch64-based chips).
The algorithm used here follows the same process as the original implementation using SSE2. Most of the vector instructions in SSE2 have corresponding parts in neon. The only issue is that there is no corresponding instruction for `_mm_movemask_epi8` in neon. To address this problem, I referred to the article at https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/infrastructure-solutions-blog/posts/porting-x86-vector-bitmask-optimizations-to-arm-neon.
By making it an `EscapeError` instead of a `LitError`. This makes it
like the other errors produced when checking string literals contents,
e.g. for invalid escape sequences or bare CR chars.
NOTE: this means these errors are issued earlier, before expansion,
which changes behaviour. It will be possible to move the check back to
the later point if desired. If that happens, it's likely that all the
string literal contents checks will be delayed together.
One nice thing about this: the old approach had some code in
`report_lit_error` to calculate the span of the nul char from a range.
This code used a hardwired `+2` to account for the `c"` at the start of
a C string literal, but this should have changed to a `+3` for raw C
string literals to account for the `cr"`, which meant that the caret in
`cr"` nul error messages was one short of where it should have been. The
new approach doesn't need any of this and avoids the off-by-one error.
internal: Consider all kinds of explicit private imports in find_path
Builds on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/16265 to make things a bit more general, now we consider all explicit private imports.
fix: Acknowledge `pub(crate)` imports in import suggestions
rust-analyzer has logic that discounts suggesting `use`s for private imports, but that logic is unnecessarily strict - for instance given this code:
```rust
mod foo {
pub struct Foo;
}
pub(crate) use self::foo::*;
mod bar {
fn main() {
Foo$0;
}
}
```
... RA will suggest to add `use crate::foo::Foo;`, which not only makes the code overly verbose (especially in larger code bases), but also is disjoint with what rustc itself suggests.
This commit adjusts the logic, so that `pub(crate)` imports are taken into account when generating the suggestions; considering rustc's behavior, I think this change doesn't warrant any extra configuration flag.
Note that this is my first commit to RA, so I guess the approach taken here might be suboptimal - certainly feels somewhat hacky, maybe there's some better way of finding out the optimal import path 😅
rust-analyzer has logic that discounts suggesting `use`s for private
imports, but that logic is unnecessarily strict - for instance given
this code:
```rust
mod foo {
pub struct Foo;
}
pub(crate) use self::foo::*;
mod bar {
fn main() {
Foo$0;
}
}
```
... RA will suggest to add `use crate::foo::Foo;`, which not only makes
the code overly verbose (especially in larger code bases), but also is
disjoint with what rustc itself suggests.
This commit adjusts the logic, so that `pub(crate)` imports are taken
into account when generating the suggestions; considering rustc's
behavior, I think this change doesn't warrant any extra configuration
flag.
Note that this is my first commit to RA, so I guess the approach taken
here might be suboptimal - certainly feels somewhat hacky, maybe there's
some better way of finding out the optimal import path 😅
Replace SourceRootCrates hashset output with slice for deterministic order
We only iterate over the result, and its pretty small in general so no point for the `HashSet` (additionally this way we get a more defined iteration order).
