fix(benchx_cli): resolve upstream conflict #2221

Performance Regression: -32.31%

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 32 regressed benchmarks
✅ 29 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 3 skipped benchmarks¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
❌	`faster fib(20)`	46.6 µs	50.1 µs	-7%
⚡	`003-hello-list__main-thread-componentAtIndex__reuse`	3.1 ms	2.4 ms	+26.62%
❌	`003-hello-list__main-thread-renderMainThread`	14.7 ms	16.4 ms	-10.33%
❌	`003-hello-list__main-thread-processData`	22.3 µs	24 µs	-7.25%
❌	`more faster fib(20)`	16.2 µs	18.9 µs	-14.45%
❌	`006-static-raw-text__main-thread-renderOpcodes`	3.2 ms	3.5 ms	-7.73%
❌	`004-various-update-setAttribute__BatchedValues`	316.1 µs	336.1 µs	-5.96%
❌	`003-hello-list__main-thread-renderOpcodes`	2.2 ms	2.5 ms	-9.02%
❌	`slower fib(20)`	5.3 ms	5.7 ms	-7.01%
❌	`006-static-raw-text__main-thread-serializeRoot`	910.8 µs	985.2 µs	-7.55%
⚡	`004-various-update__main-thread-setAttribute__MT_Event`	96.1 µs	90 µs	+6.75%
❌	`004-various-update/background.js_LoadScript`	384.7 µs	421 µs	-8.64%
❌	`003-hello-list__main-thread-serializeRoot`	3.7 ms	4.1 ms	-9.89%
❌	`001-fib/background.js_LoadScript`	565.3 µs	609.3 µs	-7.23%
❌	`005-load-script/background.js_LoadScript`	1.2 ms	1.3 ms	-7.77%
❌	`002-hello-reactLynx-destroyBackground`	615.7 µs	909.6 µs	-32.31%
❌	`002-hello-reactLynx-renderBackground`	2.6 ms	2.8 ms	-7.24%
❌	`005-load-script/main-thread.js_LoadScript`	1.1 ms	1.2 ms	-9.47%
❌	`006-static-raw-text-renderBackground`	2.9 ms	3.2 ms	-8.32%
❌	`002-hello-reactLynx__main-thread-processData`	21.6 µs	23 µs	-5.97%
...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

_{Comparing hzy:p/hzy/benchx_cli_maintenance (56ffe5d) with main (63a1cdb)²}

3 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩
No successful run was found on main (b73e766) during the generation of this report, so 63a1cdb was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩