Laurențiu Nicola

Is there any reason why you couldn't use the version in `rustup`?

Oh, okay. > an hour Ugh.

Yeah. Windows 32-bit has also been requested quite often.

If your plugin downloads anything, that's probably https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/11080.

Repro: [hello.zip](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/files/9148905/hello.zip) `cargo check` finishes in 650 ms, RA takes 60 seconds. ``` 17.66% rust-analyzer rust-analyzer [.] mbe::to_parser_input::to_parser_input 11.57% rust-analyzer rust-analyzer [.] tt::buffer::Cursor::eof 7.10% rust-analyzer rust-analyzer [.] rustc_ap_rustc_lexer::::eat_decimal_digits 6.09% rust-analyzer...

I don't know the code very well, but constructing the `TokenBuffer` once sounds the most reasonable, but I _think_ I can see why it's hard to implement. But we should...

This was never reported before. Skimming `autocfg`, it doesn't seem to use `RUSTC_WRAPPER`, which might explain the difference. You can use disable `rust-analyzer.cargo.buildScripts.useRustcWrapper` as a workaround. Specifically about `anyhow`, I...

One solution might be to detect nested invocations of our wrapper: if we're not the outer one, we could pass through the call to `rustc` (or even to a `RA_ORIGINAL_RUSTC_WRAPPER`...

> Build scripts don't cause nested invocations of the wrapper. Doesn't the `anyhow` build script do just that?

Am I missing something here? 1. RA sets `RUSTC_WRAPPER=rust-analyzer` 2. RA runs `cargo check` 3. `cargo check` compiles the `anyhow` build script 4. `cargo check` runs the `anyhow` build script,...