Hi! I noticed that there is an inconsistent usage of pointer and value semantics in the depthCounter struct. In case both options achieve the same goal, it would be beneficial to stick to one (e.g., to the pointer semantics) to reduce allocs, i.e., 42 less allocs per operation, and almost 1KB of memory saved per operation.
$ go test -run='^$' -benchmem -bench '^BenchmarkUnixFDs$'
...
# new
BenchmarkUnixFDs-2 6584 221914 ns/op 15276 B/op 563 allocs/op
# old
BenchmarkUnixFDs-2 4662 307360 ns/op 16290 B/op 605 allocs/op
$ benchstat bench-old.txt bench-pointer.txt
name old time/op new time/op delta
UnixFDs-2 263µs ±29% 273µs ±26% ~ (p=0.720 n=9+10)
name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta
UnixFDs-2 16.3kB ± 0% 15.3kB ± 0% -6.19% (p=0.000 n=8+6)
name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta
UnixFDs-2 605 ± 0% 563 ± 0% -6.94% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
Hi! I noticed that there is an inconsistent usage of pointer and value semantics in the
depthCounterstruct. In case both options achieve the same goal, it would be beneficial to stick to one (e.g., to the pointer semantics) to reduce allocs, i.e., 42 less allocs per operation, and almost 1KB of memory saved per operation.