Removed unsigned parametrization from Intervaltree

[WillAyd]

closes #30365 , #27169

Unclear if we currently consider this a feature, but I couldn't find anything explicitly asking for it so trying the removal route first

Not sure what the other alternative would be for parametrization, but I think generally we need to be careful when doing comparisons between signed and unsigned in templating or fused types

Side benefit - this gets rid of 128 build warnings and a slight perf boost to compilation

[jbrockmendel]

this gets rid of 128 build warnings

That'd be really nice

[WillAyd]

Hmm missed the parametrized tests that are causing failures. Suppose this won't be as easy as I'd hoped

[WillAyd]

@jschendel just saw your comment here which I think is applicable:

#20651 (comment)

From quite a while ago but does this still ring a bell? Do you know what fix you had that raised an OverflowError? I actually think that would be preferable?

[jreback]

you likely need to change the inner code to actually handle uint64 with different indexers

[jschendel]

I don't remember exactly what I did to get the OverflowError but my vague recollection is that I had to create two additional fused types for signed vs unsigned and them add them as an additional parameter to nodes here:

pandas/pandas/_libs/intervaltree.pxi.in

Lines 233 to 235 in 5a7b5c9

	nodes = []
	for dtype in ['float32', 'float64', 'int32', 'int64', 'uint64']:
	for closed, cmp_left, cmp_right in [

And then appropriately use the signed/unsigned fused types within the node classes.

I recall trying a lot of different things, so the above might not actually be the appropriate thing to do, and is really just the thing I most distinctly recall trying.

[WillAyd]

@jschendel already fixed this. closing