[PATCH] D115907: [misexpect] Re-implement MisExpect Diagnostics

[Paul Kirth via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

paulkirth added a comment.

MisExpect was originally intended to be quite strict, so that developers would audit their code and re-evaluate the correctness of their annotations,or if they were needed at all.

I think I'm still of a mind that getting flagged by MisExpect indicates that a different annotation would be more beneficial, such as `llvm.expect.with.probability`.

Regardless, I agree its good to give users an option to relax the checking when they want to, so I will add an option that allows them to specify a scaling factor for the threshold.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D115907/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D115907