Consistently use uintN_t not u_intN_t in libm

[Zack Weinberg]

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> Do people think we should also change all the remaining uses of
> u_intN_t elsewhere in glibc, except for the definitions of those type
> names?  (The bulk of the uses were the libm ones, but there are still
> about 80 uses elsewhere left after this patch.)

I'm for it.