FIXED: alternate fix for macOS static_assert issue

[levb]

(looking into KeyValueDiscardOldToNew failure...)

[kozlovic]

LGTM - As long as it fixes the build on macOS, I am fine with this approach. For the failing test, I fixed it in the other PR (see code changes done in test.c for that failing test)

[levb]

@kozlovic yes, I just rebased on your other PR to pull in that fix. I verified that this compiles on my MacOS in both C99 and C11 modes, and that the check fired in both. Waiting for the rebased version to pass...

[kozlovic]

Why don't you submit the PR out of the main branch and simply add the fix to the test that is required because of the new server behavior? Or if you want, I can have a PR with just the test fix and close the PR about the compiler. Then you can rebase your PR from main with just the changes to assert?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 70.28%. Comparing base (3d53216) to head (391eaeb).
Report is 1 commits behind head on fix_status_and_flapper.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                    Coverage Diff                     @@
##           fix_status_and_flapper     #875      +/-   ##
==========================================================
- Coverage                   70.29%   70.28%   -0.01%     
==========================================================
  Files                          47       47              
  Lines                       15558    15558              
  Branches                     3206     3206              
==========================================================
- Hits                        10936    10935       -1     
- Misses                       1541     1544       +3     
+ Partials                     3081     3079       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[levb]

@kozlovic because I am proposing a change to your PR, so this is the right order? 1/5 I should've done it to begin with...

[kozlovic]

because I am proposing a change to your PR, so it'd be the right order? 1/5 I should've done it to begin with...

@levb Oh, I would have done it directly from main (and simply take the change for the KV test). But I should have actually have the KV test fixed independently in the first place!

[kozlovic]

LGTM