Remove spotlight
I had a few comments saying that this feature was at best misunderstood or not even used so I decided to organize a poll about on [twitter](https://twitter.com/imperioworld_/status/1232769353503956994). After 87 votes, the result is very clear: it's not useful. Considering the amount of code we have just to run it, I think it's definitely worth it to remove it.
r? @kinnison
cc @ollie27
* Generate links to the primitive type docs for re-exports.
* Don't ICE on cross crate primitive type re-exports.
* Make primitive type re-exports show up cross crate.
Use named fields for `{ast,hir}::ItemKind::Impl`
Currently, the widely used `ItemKind::Impl` variant is a tuple with seven fields. I want to add an eighth in #68140, which means I have to update most matches on this variant anyways. Giving a name to each field improves readability and makes future changes of this nature much simpler.
This change will cause several tools to break. I will fix them once this is merged.
rustc: arena-allocate the slice in `ty::GenericsPredicate`, not the whole struct.
While rebasing #59789 I noticed we can do this now. However, it doesn't help much without changing `inferred_outlives_of` to the same type, which I might try next.
There's not really any reason to not have the visibility default to
inherited, and this saves us the trouble of checking everywhere for
whether we have a visibility or not.
Improve Rustdoc's handling of procedural macros
Fixes#58700Fixes#58696Fixes#49553Fixes#52210
This commit removes the special rustdoc handling for proc macros, as we can now
retrieve their span and attributes just like any other item.
A new command-line option is added to rustdoc: `--crate-type`. This takes the same options as rustc's `--crate-type` option. However, all values other than `proc-macro` are treated the same. This allows Rustdoc to enable 'proc macro mode' when handling a proc macro crate.
In compiletest, a new 'rustdoc-flags' option is added. This allows us to
pass in the '--proc-macro-crate' flag in the absence of Cargo.
I've opened [an additional PR to Cargo](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/7159) to support passing in this flag.
These two PRS can be merged in any order - the Cargo changes will not
take effect until the 'cargo' submodule is updated in this repository.
Fixes#58700Fixes#58696Fixes#49553Fixes#52210
This commit removes the special rustdoc handling for proc macros, as we
can now
retrieve their span and attributes just like any other item.
A new command-line option is added to rustdoc: `--crate-type`. This
takes the same options as rustc's `--crate-type` option. However, all
values other than `proc-macro` are treated the same. This allows Rustdoc
to enable 'proc macro mode' when handling a proc macro crate.
In compiletest, a new 'rustdoc-flags' option is added. This allows us to
pass in the '--proc-macro-crate' flag in the absence of Cargo.
I've opened [an additional PR to
Cargo](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/7159) to support passing
in this flag.
These two PRS can be merged in any order - the Cargo changes will not
take effect until the 'cargo' submodule is updated in this repository.
This drops the parking_lot dependency; the ReentrantMutex type appeared
to be unused (at least, no compilation failures occurred).
This is technically a possible change in behavior of its users, as
lock() would wait on other threads releasing their guards, but since we
didn't actually remove any threading or such in this code, it appears
that we never used that behavior (the behavior change is only noticeable
if the type previously was used in two threads, in a single thread
ReentrantMutex is useless).
Split off from #62855
Currently, rustdoc ignores any doc comments found on 'pub use'
statements. As described in issue #58700, this makes it impossible to
properly document procedural macros. Any doc comments must be written on
the procedural macro definition, which must occur in a dedicated
proc-macro crate. This means that any doc comments or doc tests cannot
reference items defined in re-exporting crate, despite the fact that
such items may be required to use the procedural macro.
To solve this issue, this commit allows doc comments to be written on
'pub use' statements. For consistency, this applies to *all* 'pub use'
statements, not just those importing procedural macros.
When inlining documentation, documentation on 'pub use' statements will
be prepended to the documentation of the inlined item. For example,
the following items:
```rust
mod other_mod {
/// Doc comment from definition
pub struct MyStruct;
}
/// Doc comment from 'pub use'
///
pub use other_mod::MyStruct;
```
will caues the documentation for the re-export of 'MyStruct' to be
rendered as:
```
Doc comment from 'pub use'
Doc comment from definition
```
Note the empty line in the 'pub use' doc comments - because doc comments
are concatenated as-is, this ensure that the doc comments on the
definition start on a new line.
