[xtqqczze]

Use a shared cfg alias for BSD targets to reduce duplication and keep platform-specific conditional compilation consistent across the codebase.

Closes #15423.
Closes #15425.
Follow-up to #10443.

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 2.63%

2 warnings, 1 note

⚠️ 122 benchmarks are dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ Base and head ran on different runner types

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runner types, so the changes might not come from the code. Run base and head on the same runner type, or use CodSpeed Macro Runners for more stable results.

Learn more about Macro Runners

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

ℹ️ 1 benchmark has no flamegraph

The flamegraph wasn't generated: most of the time was spent in runtime internals, which would leave nothing useful to analyze.

See affected benchmarks

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 3 regressed benchmarks
✅ 396 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 70 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	CPU Simulation	true_consecutive_calls	294.7 ns	350.2 ns	-15.86%
❌	CPU Simulation	cksum_multiple_files	48.8 ms	50.6 ms	-3.59%
❌	CPU Simulation	du_deep_tree[(100, 3)]	1.9 ms	1.9 ms	-3.03%
⚡	Memory	du_deep_tree[(100, 3)]	82.4 KB	76.5 KB	+7.68%
⚡	CPU Simulation	sort_unique_utf8_locale	84.9 ms	82.2 ms	+3.35%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing xtqqczze:refactor/cfg_aliases/bsd (8b0ebf8) with main (d5d68c8)²}

Footnotes

1. 70 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. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (bb4532f) during the generation of this report, so d5d68c8 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩