ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)

[jamesb192@jamesb192.com jamesb192@jamesb192.com]

> On 05/14/2022 8:53 PM Gary E. Miller via devel <devel at ntpsec.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> Yo Hal!
> 
> On Sat, 14 May 2022 17:42:59 -0700
> Hal Murray via devel <devel at ntpsec.org> wrote:
> 
> > I'm cc-ing devel so this doesn't get lost on gitlab.  Let's move the 
> > discussion real email..
> > 
> > 
> > > include/ntp_fp.h:58 defines l_fp as a uint64_4, I can find no
> > > current contrary definitions.  
> > 
> > We need to make a cleanup pass in this area.
> > 
> > On the wire, it's unsigned.  As soon as the code gets 2 of them, it
> > does a subtract so we need a signed version.  We need to check for
> > underflow on the initial subtract.
> > 
> > There is also u_fp, a 32 bit version.  The comment says there is a
> > s_fp, but I can't find it.
> > 
> > -------
> > 
> > I think we should comment out this test until we get the release out.
> > Please include references to both issues and this message/thread.
> 
> I'm OK with commenting it out, just the two lines, until we figure out
> what clang is doing.  But I'd rather figure it out...

I figured it out a while back and apparently failed to post my work to bug 714. It has to do with whether l_fp_abs is inlined and/or optimized IIRC. I had a (partial) disasembly, but I threw it away.