Coverity complained that simple8b_encode() might read beyond the end of
the 'diffs' array, in the loop to encode the integers. That was a false
positive, because we never get into the loop in modes 0 or 1, and the
array is large enough for all the other modes. But I admit it's very
subtle, so it's not surprising that Coverity didn't see it, and it's not
very obvious to humans either. Refactor it, so that the second loop
re-computes the differences, instead of carrying them over from the first
loop in the 'diffs' array. This way, the 'diffs' array is not needed
anymore. It makes no measurable difference in performance, and seems more
straightforward this way.

Also, improve the comments in simple8b_encode(): fix the comment about its
return value that was flat-out wrong, and explain the condition when it
returns EMPTY_CODEWORD better.

In the passing, move the 'selector' from the codeword's low bits to the
high bits. It doesn't matter much, but looking at the original paper, and
googling around for other Simple-8b implementations, that's how it's
usually done.

Per Coverity, and Tom Lane's report off-list.