suggest using pub(crate) for E0364

[makai410]

• This introduces vis_span into ImportData for diagnostic purposes.
  Closes: Teach pub(crate) use for E0364 on macro_rules! #145140

[rustbot]

r? @lcnr

rustbot has assigned @lcnr.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[Kivooeo]

Looking at all other resolve_consider_* error messages I found this addition pretty inconsistent with others, all of them starts with "consider" except this one, is there is no particalr reason for it, could you please rewrite it

[makai410]

I just make it align with resolve_consider_marking_as_pub, and "resolve" probably is taken from "rustc_resolve"

[Kivooeo]

Hm, I see, sounds reasonable but I wonder if something like that could probably work here?

resolve_consider_adding_macro_export =
   consider adding a `#[macro_export]` to the macro in the imported module
   .help = or if you want to use the macro within this crate only, reduce the visibility to `pub(crate)`

[makai410]

it's not modular enough then IMO

[Kivooeo]

If this is a regression test, a nice-to-have addition would be a link to the original issue

[lcnr]

Suggested change

	help: or if you want to use the macro within this crate only, reduce the visibility to `pub(crate)`
	help: in case you want to use the macro within this crate only, reduce the visibility to `pub(crate)`

I feel like the "or" doesn't provide much value here and is not something we do in many other error messages (if at all)

[makai410]

done

[lcnr]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d9d91c9 (d9d91c9b200cb9e062f3e84ce3e278807e759357, parent: b1b26b834d85e84b46aa8f8f3ce210a1627aa85f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d9d91c9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary 0.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.2%, 2.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.3%, -0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.3%, 1.3%]	3

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 464.328s -> 463.676s (-0.14%)
Artifact size: 377.44 MiB -> 377.33 MiB (-0.03%)