(In reply to Gary Kwong [:gkw] [:nth10sd] from comment #0)
Nicolas, do you think you can add this? --ion-warmup-threshold=0 seems to find some issues that --ion-warmup-threshold=100 does not catch.
(I'm not sure if =0 finds all of the issues that =100 also finds though, i.e. I'm not sure if the =100 set of bugs is a subset of the =0 ones. Hence I'm not sure if they are either/or or we should have both)
Honestly I thought --ion-eager would be similar to --ion-warmup-threshold=0, but I guess that --ion-eager might be similar to --ion-warmup-threshold=1.
I think --ion-warmup-threshold=100 still makes sense as it will compile after TI collection of various type observation from Baseline. These eager mode would miss cases where Baseline observes more than one type.