fix(gnovm): alternative way(of #4444) to get last line

[ltzmaxwell]

No description provided.

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

All Automated Checks passed. ✅

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):

• IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

☑️ Contributor Actions:

1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
   • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
   • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
   • Update documentation, if required.
   • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
   • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.

☑️ Reviewer Actions:

1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.

📚 Resources:

• Report a bug with the bot.
• View the bot’s configuration file.

Debug

Automated Checks

Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: ltzmaxwell/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Manual Checks

**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

• Any user with comment edit permission

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[ltzmaxwell]

alternative of #4444.

[thehowl]

The approach looks good in intent (keeping the last line simply in the machine), though maybe we should keep the tracking in OpExec / OpEval?

I don't know if that adequately captures all the cases we need; but I think the current changes don't consider, for instance, ForcePopOp or other ways of capturing the latest statement.

[ltzmaxwell]

The approach looks good in intent (keeping the last line simply in the machine), though maybe we should keep the tracking in OpExec / OpEval?

yeah, sounds more correct: f911020

I don't know if that adequately captures all the cases we need; but I think the current changes don't consider, for instance, I don't know if that adequately captures all the cases we need; but I think the current changes don't consider, for instance, ForcePopOp or other ways of capturing the latest statement. or other ways of capturing the latest statement.

didn't fully get this, add a test for ForcePopOp, it looks works: a762d9e