perf(crypto): simplify and speed up Address.Compare

[odeke-em]

Takes advantage of knowledge that Address is simply an array derived from []byte and Go's rules allow us to address each with [:] to find []byte and pass those into bytes.Compare instead of the unnecessarily inefficient make, copy. crypto.Address is very fundamental and a building block to Gno and all of cryptocurrencies, thus making its operations much more efficient is necessary.
While here also made Address.Compare take a pointer receiver which reduces the need to make a stack copy of the receiver and with that we have this speed up while making the code more succinct and direct and more idiomatic

$ benchstat before.txt after.txt
name              old time/op    new time/op    delta
AddressCompare-8    79.5ns ± 1%    33.3ns ± 8%  -58.17%  (p=0.000 n=10+9)

name              old alloc/op   new alloc/op   delta
AddressCompare-8     8.00B ± 0%     8.00B ± 0%     ~     (all equal)

name              old allocs/op  new allocs/op  delta
AddressCompare-8      1.00 ± 0%      1.00 ± 0%     ~     (all equal)

Fixes #4129

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

All Automated Checks passed. ✅

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):

• IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)
• The pull request description provides enough details (checked by @thehowl)

Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)
🟢 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

☑️ Contributor Actions:

1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
   • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
   • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
   • Update documentation, if required.
   • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
   • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.

☑️ Reviewer Actions:

1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.

📚 Resources:

• Report a bug with the bot.
• View the bot’s configuration file.

Debug

Automated Checks

Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: odeke-em/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 If
    ├── 🟢 Condition
    │   └── 🟢 Or
    │       ├── 🟢 At least 1 user(s) of the organization reviewed the pull request (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🟢 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🟢 Then
        └── 🟢 And
            ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending)
            └── 🟢 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request

Manual Checks

**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

• Any user with comment edit permission

The pull request description provides enough details

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: core-contributors)
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is user: dependabot[bot])

Can be checked by

• team core-contributors

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 87.50000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
contribs/gnodev/pkg/address/book.go	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[notJoon]

I can see that reduced memory copying and unnecessary repeated calls. It looks reasonable to me. approved 👍

remove: review/triage-pending flag

[thehowl]

I don't know if this matters enough; it seems to be used in some functions in Validator/ValidatorSet to matter enough. I'll let someone else take a second look first.

[moul]

I'm also skeptical about how much it matters. We should have not only "per function benchmarks" but also flame graphs that show how frequently calls are made in real usage.

These flame graphs could become shared assets rather than something we expect with each pull request.

I'll open an issue to explore if someone has a good idea for generating flame graphs in the CI. We don't need a history; ideally, we just want a few generated flame graphs that match a recent version of the code or a pull request for convenience.

[moul]

-> #4151

[moul]

Let's block this PR until we can compare a before-and-after using a usage flamegraph or another method that provides real-world usage data, not just per-function metrics.

[odeke-em]

One thing though to objectively acknowledge and note is that the prior code was really extraneous and my change isn't even an "optimization" but really how the code should have been written for idiomatic Go the proper way, it just happens to make the code much more efficient and faster.

Skepticism over performance is usually more pertinent when one is being clever and the performance checks will later show, Address comparison is pretty important and quite heavily used.

[moul]

Let's prove it.