René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes: > Swapping between different types would then still have to be done > manually, but I wonder how common that is -- couldn't find such a case > in our tree. I do not think it is a common thing to do, and more importantly, I doubt we want to hide such a swap inside a macro. And that is why I said the seemingly extra "type" thing may be an improvement over your original SWAP() thing if it gives us more type safety. It seems that the thread has been quite for a while. Perhaps people are happy enough with your patches? If so, let's move it forward, but I'll wait for a while in case follow-up discussion appears soonish. The changes are fairly well isolated and I do not think we are in a hurry.