fix: target-cpu=native flag working again

[jbencin]

Description

Pass the flag target-cpu=native to rustc for local builds and tests for improved performance

This PR also require stacks-network/actions#31 to be approved and merged

Applicable issues

• Find Optimizations in the current Clarity VM via benchmarking current VM and Wasm #4316
• chore: Drop support for old x86_64 CPUs #4364: Original commit enabling this flag
• feat: gate target-cpu=native with portable feature #4489: Broke flag being passed to rustc (not sure why)

[wileyj]

this changes quite a lot when considering ti's for

Pass the flag target-cpu=native to rustc for local builds and tests for improved performance

what it is goal of this PR?

[jbencin]

this changes quite a lot when considering ti's for

It touches 12 of files, but it's only adding a single word in 11 of them

what it is goal of this PR?

It's a few percent perf improvements on local builds. See the discussion on the Slack #performance channel. I added this in #4363, but it was broken in #4489

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.21%. Comparing base (0e9cf5d) to head (8ff05eb).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #4498      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.32%   83.21%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         453      453              
  Lines      328494   328494              
  Branches      323      323              
==========================================
- Hits       273731   273342     -389     
- Misses      54755    55144     +389     
  Partials        8        8              

see 25 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0e9cf5d...8ff05eb. Read the comment docs.

[wileyj]

this changes quite a lot when considering ti's for

It touches 12 of files, but it's only adding a single word in 11 of them

what it is goal of this PR?

It's a few percent perf improvements on local builds. See the discussion on the Slack #performance channel. I added this in #4363, but it was broken in #4489

i guess that's my question - you've mentioned "local builds" twice now, but there are only 2 Dockerfiles that should ever be used to build locally: Dockerfile and Dockerfle.debian. the rest are quite specific to PR and release builds.
you could make the case to add the change here as well: ./.github/actions/dockerfiles/Dockerfile.debian-source.

[wileyj]

if #4489 added a regression, wouldn't it be simpler to revert that change vs adding more changes?

[wileyj]

requesting changes as a placeholder, i think a call is in order

[wileyj]

@jbencin can PR the ./build-scripts changes here as well? there is an open PR to start using these files that hasn't merged into next yet.
https://github.com/stacks-network/actions/tree/main/stacks-core/create-source-binary/build-scripts

we can discuss concerns around removing these from the stacks-core repo elsewhere, my main concern is merging this PR, then not having these chagnes in teh stacks-core/build-scripts is removed in another open PR

[wileyj]

shipit

[wileyj]

ref: #4497

[obycode]

ok, I think this seems fine. 👍

[obycode]

Looks like there are still conflicts here @jbencin

[wileyj]

Looks like there are still conflicts here @jbencin

it's related to #4497

[wileyj]

shipit