Abstract more over ItemTreeLoc-like structs
Allows reducing some code duplication by using functions generic over said structs. The diff isn't negative due to me adding some additional impls for completeness.
Swap Subtree::token_trees from Vec to boxed slice
Performs one of the optimizations suggested in #16325, but a little bit more. Boxed slices guarantee `shrink_to_fit` aswell as saving a pointer width as no capacity has to be stored.
Most of the diff is:
- Changing `vec![]` to `Box::new([])`
- Changing initialize -> fill into fill -> into_boxed_slice
- Working around the lack of an owned iterator or automatic iteration over a `Box<[T]>`
I would like to use my own crate, [small-fixed-array](https://lib.rs/small-fixed-array), although I understand if it isn't mature enough for this. If I'm given the go ahead, I can rework this PR to use it instead.
internal: even more `tracing`
As part of profiling completions, I added some additional spans and moved `TyBuilder::subst_for_def` closer to its usage site (the latter had a small impact on completion performance. Thanks for the tip, Lukas!)
This commit also adds `tracing` to NotificationDispatcher/RequestDispatcher,
bumps `rust-analyzer-salsa` to 0.17.0-pre.6, `always-assert` to 0.2, and
removes the homegrown `hprof` implementation in favor of a vendored
tracing-span-tree.
feat: Support for GOTO def from *inside* files included with include! macro
close#14937
Try to implement goto def from *inside* files included with include! macro.
This implementation has two limitations:
1. Only **one** file which calls include! will be tracked. (I think multiple file be included is a rare case and we may let it go for now)
2. Mapping token from included file to macro call file (semantics.rs:646~658) works fine but I am not sure is this the correct way to implement.
