Fix LEGACY_SESSION removal conflict

[robert3005]

No description provided.

[AdamGS]

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

⚡ 6 improved benchmarks
❌ 3 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1570 untouched benchmarks
🆕 6 new benchmarks
⏩ 4 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	slice_empty_vortex	310 ns	368.3 ns	-15.84%
❌	Simulation	chunked_varbinview_canonical_into[(100, 100)]	223.8 µs	259.5 µs	-13.78%
❌	Simulation	chunked_varbinview_into_canonical[(100, 100)]	270.7 µs	306.9 µs	-11.78%
⚡	Simulation	bitwise_not_vortex_buffer_mut[128]	273.6 ns	215.3 ns	+27.1%
⚡	Simulation	chunked_varbinview_into_canonical[(1000, 10)]	205.4 µs	169.3 µs	+21.32%
⚡	Simulation	bitwise_not_vortex_buffer_mut[1024]	333.9 ns	275.6 ns	+21.17%
⚡	Simulation	bitwise_not_vortex_buffer_mut[2048]	427.8 ns	369.4 ns	+15.79%
⚡	Simulation	encode_varbin[(1000, 8)]	162.7 µs	144.9 µs	+12.29%
⚡	Simulation	encode_varbin[(1000, 4)]	160.7 µs	143.9 µs	+11.67%
🆕	Simulation	vortex[random/n2/nonnull]	N/A	132.7 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	vortex[random/n2/null]	N/A	135.6 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	vortex[round_robin/n2/nonnull]	N/A	135.9 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	vortex[round_robin/n2/null]	N/A	135.2 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	vortex[random/n64/nonnull]	N/A	182.8 µs	N/A
🆕	Simulation	vortex[random/n64/null]	N/A	198.8 µs	N/A

Tip

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

---

_{Comparing rk/conflict (973e04e) with develop (809e2a4)²}

Footnotes

1. 4 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 develop (dab39bf) during the generation of this report, so 809e2a4 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩