Skip to content

Subtree update of rust-analyzer #136803

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Merged
merged 118 commits into from
Feb 10, 2025
Merged

Subtree update of rust-analyzer #136803

merged 118 commits into from
Feb 10, 2025

Conversation

lnicola
Copy link
Member

@lnicola lnicola commented Feb 10, 2025

r? @ghost

vishruth-thimmaiah and others added 30 commits January 20, 2025 19:46
Split manual.adoc into markdown files, one for each chapter.

For the parts of the manual that are generated from source code doc
comments, update the comments to use markdown syntax and update the
code generators to write to `generated.md` files.

For the weekly release, stop copying the .adoc files to the
`rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer.github.io` at release time. Instead,
we'll sync the manual hourly from this repository.

See rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer.github.io#226
for the sync. This PR should be merged first, and that PR needs to be
merged before the next weekly release.

This change is based on rust-lang#15795, but rebased and updated. I've also
manually checked each page for markdown syntax issues and fixed any I
encountered.

Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Josh Rotenberg <joshrotenberg@gmail.com>
… not inside a macro call anymore) *after* the recursive call instead of before it

This is because our detection is imperfect, and miss some cases such as an impersonating `test` macro, so we hope we'll expand successfully in this case.
AKA. target_feature 1.1, or non unsafe target_feature.
fix: In completion's expand, consider recursion stop condition (when we're not inside a macro call anymore) *after* the recursive call instead of before it
Split out `ExpressionStore` from `Body`
…lues

feat: Implement `default-field-values`
It should be considered by the edition of the caller, not the callee.

Technically we still don't do it correctly - we need the span of the method name (if it comes from a macro), but we don't keep it and this is good enough for now.
That was used as a fallback, causing a panic when the fallback was chosen.

I also made sure this won't happen again by guaranteeing in the macro generating the tokens that they all exist.
fix: Fix a missing standard token in semantic highlighting
fix: Fix syntactic highlighting for renames
I added it by mistake in rust-lang#18927.

I chose to keep the method as not static, because it's more comfortable, and keep the name `add_reference()` and not `reference()`, because it is clearer and better matches `strip_reference[s]()`.
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Feb 10, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Feb 10, 2025

rust-analyzer is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/rust-analyzer instead.

cc @rust-lang/rust-analyzer

@lnicola
Copy link
Member Author

lnicola commented Feb 10, 2025

@bors r+ p=1 subtree sync

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 10, 2025

📌 Commit 8fd713b has been approved by lnicola

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 10, 2025
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2025
Subtree update of `rust-analyzer`

r? `@ghost`
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2025
Rollup of 6 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#134626 (Add Four Codegen Tests)
 - rust-lang#136053 (coverage: Defer part of counter-creation until codegen)
 - rust-lang#136228 (Simplify Rc::as_ptr docs + typo fix)
 - rust-lang#136487 (ci: stop mysql before removing it)
 - rust-lang#136790 (Git blame ignore recent formatting commit)
 - rust-lang#136803 (Subtree update of `rust-analyzer`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2025
Subtree update of `rust-analyzer`

r? `@ghost`
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 10, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 8fd713b with merge 162021c...

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

yielding once to retry the rollup of this, to see if its failure was spurious
@bors retry

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2025
Rollup of 6 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#134626 (Add Four Codegen Tests)
 - rust-lang#136053 (coverage: Defer part of counter-creation until codegen)
 - rust-lang#136228 (Simplify Rc::as_ptr docs + typo fix)
 - rust-lang#136487 (ci: stop mysql before removing it)
 - rust-lang#136790 (Git blame ignore recent formatting commit)
 - rust-lang#136803 (Subtree update of `rust-analyzer`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 10, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 8fd713b with merge 80c0919...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 10, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lnicola
Pushing 80c0919 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Feb 10, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 80c0919 into rust-lang:master Feb 10, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.86.0 milestone Feb 10, 2025
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (80c0919): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.3% [-0.3%, -0.3%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.3%, secondary -3.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
4.9% [4.9%, 4.9%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.8% [1.8%, 1.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.5% [-5.2%, -1.1%] 40
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.2% [-7.0%, -0.8%] 51
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.3% [-5.2%, 4.9%] 41

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.6%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.6% [-2.6%, -2.6%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 781.62s -> 782.79s (0.15%)
Artifact size: 348.30 MiB -> 348.27 MiB (-0.01%)

@lnicola lnicola deleted the sync-from-ra branch February 11, 2025 10:43
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.