C deps are not a problem for a typical build, but cause issues in more
esoteric scenarios, like cross-compiling. Let's check that we don't
have them.
Setting `CC` to some dummy value should do the trick, as custom build
scripts typically respect this variable.
3228: Use proper range for hover on macro arguments r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This PR use `original_range` to remap the range of found syntax node in `hover` and thus it should return the proper text range now.
fixed#3000fixed#3135
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
3229: Fix a crash with non-ascii whitespace in doc-comments r=matklad a=sinkuu
2nd commit is a random drive-by cleanup.
Co-authored-by: Shotaro Yamada <sinkuu@sinkuu.xyz>
3220: Fix clippy warnings, update Cargo.toml versions r=matklad a=SomeoneToIgnore
In the `cargo xtask lint` ouptut, there were two interesting Clippy warnings that might be interesting to investigate further:
* warning: this argument (4 byte) is passed by reference, but would be more efficient if passed by value (limit: 8 byte)
* warning: large size difference between variants
Co-authored-by: Kirill Bulatov <mail4score@gmail.com>
3026: ra_syntax: reshape SyntaxError for the sake of removing redundancy r=matklad a=Veetaha
Followup of #2911, also puts some crosses to the todo list of #223.
**AHTUNG!** A big part of the diff of this PR are test data files changes.
Simplified `SyntaxError` that was `SyntaxError { kind: { /* big enum */ }, location: Location }` to `SyntaxError(String, TextRange)`. I am not sure whether the tuple struct here is best fit, I am inclined to add names to the fields, because I already provide getters `SyntaxError::message()`, `SyntaxError::range()`.
I also removed `Location` altogether ...
This is currently WIP, because the following is not done:
- [ ] ~~Add tests to `test_data` dir for unescape errors *// I don't know where to put these errors in particular, because they are out of the scope of the lexer and parser. However, I have an idea in mind that we move all validators we have right now to parsing stage, but this is up to discussion...*~~ **[UPD]** I came to a conclusion that tree validation logic, which unescape errors are a part of, should be rethought of, we currently have no tests and no place to put tests for tree validations. So I'd like to extract potential redesign (maybe move of tree validation to ra_parser) and adding tests for this into a separate task.
Co-authored-by: Veetaha <gerzoh1@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Veetaha <veetaha2@gmail.com>
