feat: Add global bytecode cache for Eluna scripts

[iThorgrim]

Summary

Implements an in-memory bytecode cache and adds support for pre-compiled .out files, significantly improving script reload performance by avoiding recompilation of unchanged files.

Key Features

• Global cache that survives .reload eluna commands
• Smart invalidation based on file modification timestamps
• Support for all script types: .lua, .ext, .moon, and .out files
• Configurable via Eluna.BytecodeCache setting (default: enabled)

Changes

• Added support for loading pre-compiled .out files (generated by luac)
• Added GlobalCacheEntry structure for cache storage
• Implemented TryLoadFromGlobalCache() with single-lock validation
• Created unified LoadScriptWithCache() for all script types
• Added timestamp cache to minimize filesystem calls

Backward Compatibility

• Fully backward compatible - no breaking changes
• Default enabled for immediate performance benefits
• Fallback mechanisms ensure scripts load even if cache fails

Example Logs

With ByteCode Cache before reload:

[Eluna]: Searching scripts from `lua_scripts`
[Eluna]: Executed 5 Lua scripts in 0 ms (4 compiled, 0 cached, 1 pre-compiled)

With ByteCode Cache after reload:

[Eluna]: Searching scripts from `lua_scripts`
[Eluna]: Executed 5 Lua scripts in 0 ms (0 compiled, 4 cached, 1 pre-compiled)

Without ByteCode Cache:

[Eluna]: Searching scripts from `lua_scripts`
[Eluna]: Executed 5 Lua scripts in 0 ms

Testing

Verified with mixed .lua, .moon, and .out files.

[TheSCREWEDSoftware]

I would suggest the config file just have "Cache" or "Script Cache" instead of complex name that the user may not understand what is, even with the description with.

[iThorgrim]

I would suggest the config file just have "Cache" or "Script Cache" instead of complex name that the user may not understand what is, even with the description with.

I understand the concern, but "Bytecode Cache" is a deliberate choice:

• The option doesn’t cache raw scripts, but their compiled bytecode.
• Calling it just "Script Cache" would be misleading, since it could suggest file or runtime caching.
• The current name matches the actual mechanism, and the description in the config explains it clearly enough for non-technical users.