Looks good.

See D11232 for a different approach.

This patch now takes the opposite approach of what @illis proposes in D11078. The function on the rust side is sent as a pointer.

I'd have thought the same docker on the same hardware would give the same compiled code. I'll have a go at making a version of the patch where there are no qbytearray_t and no qstring_t.

qbytearray_t and qstring_t are passed to C, so they should be PODs. This requires quite large changes.

After testing, I found that this patch crashes the demo in my docker on a 64 bit machine.

Ok, good to more customary use of ECM.

Yes, good to show the communication channels prominently.

Looks like a professional CMake file now!

Looks good!

Why only test when there is no ECM?

I did not see that you changed the text. Just merge and I'll read through it later today. Great to see that you managed to make something work with the text.

Nice!

Great patch, Pearce!

Looking good. I tested with some simple functions with bool and QString and I'm happy to have this feature.

This looks good. Please commit it.

Ok. so fundamentally different rendering.

In R247:3e1a1f9c338af3a6a46bbfd07d57133f128e6f62#2053125, @bcooksley wrote:

Phabricator's documentation is located at https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/remarkup/

I noticed not all parts of the README.md are rendered. Embedded HTML and an image ![]().

The project has an icon in the repo: demo/rust_qt_binding_generator.svg. Can that be reference in the metadata here? I noticed all the icon fields that are not null are just a name. How does that work?

The patch looks clean, but I do not fully understand how is supposed to work. Perhaps an explanation of the different scenarios would help future readers of this code.

Yes. I was a but reluctant to say ship it because i'm not a core contributor.

Ok, looks like a nice speedup for non-testing builds.

Does this make it possible to remove if(BUILD_TESTING) used in */tests/CMakeLists.txt?
Or is BUILD_TESTING not respected at the moment?

Removing this call is in line with the advice in the dbus spec.

I've pushed without the override. I do not feel I understand it well enough to commit it.

applied