Remove doctree::Macro and distinguish between macro_rules! and pub macro

[CraftSpider]

This is a part of #78082, removing doctree::Macro. Uses the changes in #79372

Fixes #76761

[rust-highfive]

r? @ollie27

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[jyn514]

r? @jyn514

[jyn514]

Please add some tests for the new behavior around pub macro. They'd go in src/test/rustdoc, there are instructions in https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/rustdoc-internals.html#dotting-is-and-crossing-ts.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Nice!

[jyn514]

This looks pretty good to me. Once #79372 is merged (hopefully today), can you rebase over those changes and squash the "Appease tidy" commits at the same time? I want to look at it once more after that but I don't expect it to need many changes.

[jyn514]

#79372 was merged.

[CraftSpider]

Rebased and squashed, as requested

[jyn514]

@bors r+

🎉 🎉

[bors]

📌 Commit a61c09a has been approved by jyn514

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit a61c09a with merge 514bb94c0c1a94f8dda90b0bf65068d57f43232c...

[jyn514]

@bors r-

@CraftSpider do you mind adding a test for multiple matches in a decl macro (and fixing it if it breaks)? There should be some examples of multiple matches in src/test/rustdoc/macro.rs.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 514bb94c0c1a94f8dda90b0bf65068d57f43232c (514bb94c0c1a94f8dda90b0bf65068d57f43232c)

[jyn514]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit d23b57c has been approved by jyn514

[jyn514]

Thanks for sticking with this!

[CraftSpider]

No problem! I'd rather spend more time to make sure everything is right, than just merge something half-functional. Thank you for your continued assistance.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d23b57c with merge 3cbb56f...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jyn514
Pushing 3cbb56f to master...

[RalfJung]

Nice, thanks for the fix! Will this make it easier to fix #74355?

[jyn514]

@RalfJung in the sense that the code is easier to work with, yes, but it may actually make it harder in the short term because the approach in #77862 no longer works; current_mod no longer exists and I don't know a way to move macros around in the AST. I continue to think #77862 is solving a problem in rustdoc that should be fixed in rustc directly.

[jyn514]

Actually, that might be a little strong - I think you could still use the same approach to chose a different module to attach the MacroDef to. So the same hack would work, but it would still be a hack.