RFC: replace vm_offset_t with uintptr_t and vm_size_t with size_t

[Ed Schouten]

Hi Matthew,

* mdf at FreeBSD.org <mdf at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> Looking over the arch-specific definitions, using uintptr_t and size_t
> would not affect the actual width of these sizes.  However, it would
> simplify e.g. conformant printf(9) statements, since there is an
> approved specifier for size_t and, while there isn't one for
> uintptr_t, ptrdiff_t is pretty close (Bruce, is there a better
> specifier)?

Not that I know any architecture we support which does this, but what
happens if userspace has a larger address space than kernelspace? Say,
we ever have some kind of architecture with a 32-bit kernel running
64-bit userspace applications.

-- 
 Ed Schouten <ed at 80386.nl>
 WWW: http://80386.nl/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20100812/263d70e1/attachment.pgp