Removed unsigned parametrization from Intervaltree
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

> this gets rid of 128 build warnings

That'd be really nice Hmm missed the parametrized tests that are causing failures. Suppose this won't be as easy as I'd hoped @jschendel just saw your comment here which I think is applicable:

https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/20651#issuecomment-381046318

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? 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:

https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/5a7b5c958c6f004c395136f9438a1ed6c04861dd/pandas/_libs/intervaltree.pxi.in#L233-L235

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. @jschendel already fixed this. closing