RFC: replace vm_offset_t with uintptr_t and vm_size_t with size_t

[John Baldwin]

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)?
> 
> Admittedly, this isn't the simplest of undertakings, as there are 590
> instances of vm_size_t in the FreeBSD source code and 3887 of
> vm_offset_t.
> 
> Has this proposal made the rounds before and been shot down for some reason?

Hmm, I suspect vm_offset_t predates uintptr_t.  I'm not sure the churn 
is really worth the effort involved especially as regards conflicts in 
future MFC's, etc.  You also forgot vm_ooffset_t -> off_t.  However, how 
often are vm_*_t values printed outside of temporary debug statements? 
They shouldn't be used in userland, so I'm not sure if there are enough 
printf() invocations to really justify the churn.

-- 
John Baldwin