Pointer semantics in depthCounter#352
Merged
guelfey merged 1 commit intogodbus:masterfrom Apr 8, 2023
Merged
Conversation
marselester
changed the title
guelfey
force-pushed
the
depthCounter-allocs
branch
from
5c9258b to
5942541
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.