SV-EC Committee meeting Monday June 20, 2011 [ http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_Meeting_June_20_2011_Minutes.txt ] Meeting number: 75% = 16 out of 21 meetings attended --------------- 221111111111000000000 109876543210987654321 Meeting Days: ------------- (202021211102021213101) Day (063951844762851730629) (000000000011111000000) Month (665544332121100998887) (111111111111111111111) Year (111111111100000000000) ------ Attendees ---------------------------- Members: 1. (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) Arturo Salz 21 - y Synopsys 2. (AAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAAA-AA) Dave Rich 19 - y Mentor 3. (A-AAAAAAAAAAAA--AAAAA) Francoise Martinolle 18 - y Cadence 4. (AAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) Mehdi Mohtashemi 20 - y Synopsys 5. (AAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAAAA) Neil Korpusik 20 - y Oracle 6. (AAAAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAA) Ray Ryan 20 - y Mentor 7. (AA-AAAAAAAAAAA-AAAAAA) Gordon Vreugdenhil 19 - y Mentor 8. (AAAAAAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAA) Steven Sharp 20 - y Cadence 9. (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) Mark Hartoog 21 - y Synopsys 10. (A-AAA-AA-AAAAAAAAAA-A) Tom Alsop 17 - y Intel 11. (A-AAAAAAA-AA--AAAA--A) Neil S 15 - y Marvel 12. (AAAAAAA-A-AAAAAA-A--A) Alex Gran 15 - y Mentor 13. (AAAA----AAAA-A-------) Brandon Tipp 9- y Intel 14. (A-AAAAAAAAAA---------) Scott Little 11 - y Freescale 15. (----------------AAAAA) Swapnajit Chakraborti 5 Cadence 16. (------A--------------) Dennis Brophy 1 Mentor 17. (AAAA--AAAA---A-AAAAAA) Daniel Schostak 15 - y ARM 18. (----AA---------------) Mike Burns 2 - Oracle 19. (-----------A---------) John Havlicek 1 Freescale 20. (--AA-----------------) Stu Sutherland 2 - Editor 21. (AAA-----AA-AAAAAAAAAA) Jonathan Bromley 15 - y Accellera Observers: 1. (---A-AA-A-AAAA-------) Tony Tsai 8 Cisco 2. (---A-AA-A-A----------) Mark Strickland 5 Cisco Former participants: 1. (--------A-AAA---A--AA) Heath Chambers 7 2. (--------AA--AA----AAA) Don Mills 7 3. (--------A-----A-AAAAA) Cliff Cummings 7 Sunburst 4. (--------AA-AA-AAAA---) Linc Jepson 8 5. (----------A----------) Dave Gates 1 AMD 16 people will have voting rights in the next meeting http://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpchan/mbrs1.html // IEEE-SA members ** Minutes taken by Neil Korpusik and Mehdi Mohtashemi ////////////////// June 20 2011 ///////////////////////// Agenda Agenda 0. Approval of Agenda ------------------------------------------------------ Additions/modifications to the agenda by members. Move: Gord to approve the agenda Second: Tom Abstain: Opposed: Unanimoulsy approved. 1. Review IEEE patent policy ------------------------------------------------------ http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Move: Mark to assume it has been read Second: Steven Abstain: Opposed: Unanimoulsy approved 2. Approval of previous meetings minutes: ------------------------------------------------------ Minutes from May 23 2011 meetings http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_Meeting_May_23_2011_Minutes.txt Move: Gord Second: Scott Abstain: Opposed: Unanimoulsy approved Minutes from June 6 2011 meetings http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_Meeting_June_6_2011_Minutes.txt Move: Jonathan Second: Gordon Abstain: Scott (was not at the meeting) Opposed: Approved with one abstain 3. Updates from P1800 WG --------------------------------------------------------- P1800WG meeting was held on June 16 2011 Neil: everything that was approved. except 2506 AI: ask Stu for compiled list. 4a. Update and Review from champions email vote June 11 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------- Champions Unanimously approved: 2985 3405 2935 245 3297 3181 2952 NOT approved: 2506 Will review the changes required to 2506 [uploaded by Scott] proposal_for_mantis_2506_v7.pdf Mantis 2506 Scott - version 7 of the proposal was uploaded on June 16th. - I don't understand this. What does "within the coverpoint" mean? (from Shalom) - made the suggested changes from Brad. Gord - has a concern about x or z values for 19.5.1.1 "evaluates to true". Steven - there is a mantis item (mantis 1251) for the wait statement on x or z values. This might apply to this text as well. Gord - the ternary operator is also an odd one. Mehdi - thinks it makes sense to leave the clarification in there. Steven - he is fine either way. Gord - it is pretty clear that the special context of a ternary wouldn't make any sense here. Not sure if we need the clarification. Steven - that other mantis item (for wait) might be enough justification to leave in the clarification. Mehdi - back to Shalom's feedback on "within the coverpoint".(page 4) Jonathan - there is some confusion within the example, the second line is invalid. Suggests the following would be better. This would make it more clear as to why it is invalid. This is a suggested change to the existing text, not the new text. From: x: coverpoint x; To: x: coverpoint z; Gord - the externally visible name is the name of the identifier when a label is not used. Gord - Back to Shalom's comments Is the expression, part of the coverpoint? The intent is for the rule to apply to the bins expression Those things other than the coverpoint expression. Jonathan - we need a name for the stuff enclosed in {} for a coverpoint. Gord - yes, we need to be clear on this. Jonathan - when a non-ref argument, it should use the value of that argument when the covergroup is constructed. Gord - that plus the rest of the text, when put it all together it is quite a mouthful. Gord - prefers to refer to covergroup construction values to be implicitly const. When constructor is used, it is the then current value. - That might allow a const member of a class of an embedded covergroup Allow the covergroup to appeal to a const variable in the enclosing class? Probably not allowed today, but shouldn't be a problem. Mehdi - could we just add more examples? Gord - Shalom's misunderstanding, is to what the rule applies to, not the coverpoint expression, but the bins. - He makes a good point here. - We are using the word scope in an informal way here. - we could appeal to the grammar (BNF), but that makes the language more difficult for the reader. There could be a wider restructuring of the text to refer to the non-ref constructor arguments and then use that terminology throughout. Jonathan - could use something along these lines "within the coverpoint bins_or_options construct..." - would like to say only the following operands can appear. Gord - it is tough to know what exactly is allowed when functions are involved. Ray - we could possibly create a new bnf term that is the body of the coverpoint and then we could use that term. Gord - how general do we want to make this? - if ref args or anything else that changes during sim is that only thing we need to disallow? Can we put together an accurate verbal description that would match up with the various implementations? - an xmr function call with ref args, is it allowed in a bin 'with'? Gord - want semantic assurance is there for ensuring you are getting the values at the point of covergroup construction? If you are referring to something that dynamically changes during simulation that is not what is being allowed by the existing rule. - We need to decide at what level we want the implementation to warn about. - The implementation can sample anything, that is not the problem What we need to decide is when to warn the user. Scott - we appeal to 11.2.1 for constant expressions Gord - if an xmr function call is legal, need to spell it out. Scott - for 'a' - an argument to a covergroup, could pass in a function? Gord - we aren't saying that all functions outside the covergroup are not allowed, are we? that would not be good. Jonathan - define behavior by capturing values when construct the covergroup. - we can always pass in values through non-ref arguments. Mehdi - would like to make sure we can clarify Shalom's concern. Francoise - will need to get input from others at Cadence. Gord - sent input to Swapnajit over one month ago. Neil - thought that others in this meeting were agreeing that Shalom raised a good point. Mehdi - can we use the suggested clarification that Jonathan mentioned? Gord - He is ok with that, but would like to hear from others on what they would like to do. - It is hard to clarify if people are unwilling to state their intent. Scott - we could use a new bnf, and use that throughout Gord - you would need to refactor the bnf and then change the text - would still like to get input from others. Mehdi - would like to have Shalom involved in the discussion. Francoise - will Scott be writing something up? Mehdi - that is what he is expecting. Francoise - swapnjit is on the reflector. Mehdi - it sounds like only one of Shalom's comments is still open. Scott - will send an update to the alias. 4b. Continue Review and discussion of top 25 issues and categories: ------------------------------------------------------ 1356 Interface Classes [Multiple inheritance] [Tom, Brandon] Tom - 1. naming issue 2. extends versus implements issue Gord - there is also still a casting issue Brandon - for extends versus implements implements only inherits the virtual method prototypes extends inherits everything - there were quite a few changes to the latest proposal. Tom - can extend multiple interface classes. Gord - an interface class can extend multiple things, no implementation regular class can extend xxx and implements all Gord - for a concrete class today with a virtual method, if derive from it a virtual class, that declares that same method as pure virtual. Is this legal? (he suspects not) The current LRM is not clear about this. - the current proposal says this can happen in certain cases. Brandon - if implement a class and also inherit from another, if inherit a pure virtual method definition and a concrete definition, what happens? Gord - Do others think this is legal? A derived class inherits its implementation of a pure virtual method from the base class which has a virtual method implementation for that same method. - the proposal seems to imply this is legal. We need to ensure that we are in agreement on this case. Tom - base class has virtual function f() extend it, with a pure virtual f() in the derived class. extended by another class. Gord - does the final class, have an obligation to provide an implementation for f()? Or is the extension in the middle level illegal? Tom - that seems illegal to him. Brandon - not in current LRM. Gord - we currently view this as illegal. - wants to make sure that everyone else thinks it is ok to do this. Francoise - thinks it should be illegal. Gord - is willing to possibly make it legal, but wants to make sure we all agree that this is the right thing to do. Jonathan - for the implementation of interface methods, the situation may be different than the non interface class case. Gord - doesn't want to make the multiple inheritance case illegal. Wants to make sure that we aren't changing the core language. - you mentioned that the two cases should be different, we need to ensure that the language is clear about this. Brandon - the text mentions that you inherit the pure virtual method prototype Gord - because using the term "inheritance". that term has well defined meaning today. Uncomfortable with the difference that applies to multiple inheritance. It means something a bit different for this situation. It isn't quite the same as inheritance. Would be Ok with saying something equivalent to the current language is not legal. Brandon - a pure virtual method in a derived class essentially does nothing Gord - Jonahthan mentioned that he wanted to allow one thing for multiple inheritance and another for the non-MI case. Steven - it feels like the term inheritance is not the right term for MI - you don't inherit the prototype itself - when stick in pure virtual it severs anything to the base class. - Doesn't issue an error, but doesn't allow access to base method. Gord - sounds like it hides the original virtual method f(). - This proposal will add another level of complexity, we should probably clarify the core language as well. Tom - right above 8.2.5.3 Brandon - this is where the clarification is (8.2.5) Gord - this is where Gord has a problem. Francoise - can have a class that implement an interface class Steven - if don't provide an implementation, also virtual Gord - if don't implement, must still be pure base class Steven - what term used in non MI cases? Francoise - 8.10 Gord - that just talks about overriding. - our whole notion of inheritance matches our intuition but doesn't match the way the LRM describes it. Steven - possibly require an implementation to change it? - It sounds like we are at least in agreement on what we want Gord - we need to make sure we are on the same page on all this. Brandon - can make some changes based on what we discussed today? Mehdi - We need others to give their feedback too, not just Gord. Steven - hasn't given detailed feedback yet. ----- rest of mantis items for review [information purposes] 2848 Is it legal to assign an interface containing class declaration to a virtual interface [Francoise] [hold for next few meetings: sv-bc is also looking at interfaces] 2845 virtual interface type checking versus interface type that had been defparam'ed [Francoise] 3002 Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) features [Tom] Mantis3002_AOPproposal.pdf 3046 Dotted names within inlined constraints [Gord] 2987 Soft Constraints [Tom] 2988 Defaults Constraints [Tom] 2993 Coverage Cross cover points across different cover groups [Arturo, Swapnajit] 3082 Daniels' top items [3075, 3076, 3077, 3078, 3079, 3080, 3081] 3003 constraint composition [Jonathan, Tom, Ray, Arturo] 2735 ballot comment #48, chaining.. [Arturo, Steven, Gord] 3001 Proper Polymorphic behavior of instantiation [Jonathan, Tom, Francoise] 2999 Class Handle reference inside of Constraints [Tom, Ray, Arturo] 1706 Meaning of static prefix for virtual interface assignments [Mark, Steven, Francoise] 2488 Are virtual method calls legal within class constructors? [Steven, Francoise] 1442 Clocking blocks legal in modports, missing from text description in 20.9 [Steven] 3254 18.5.6 if-else constraints mistakenly uses the work "block" when it means "set" 3230 task should be function in definition of static functions 2112 Remove restrictions on NBA assignments to class members [Dave, Steven] 2112_NBA.pdf 2900 - Associative array should consider the context of an lvalue to create an entry [Dave] 2794 - Clarify queue methods return status (related to sv-bc) 1067 (LRM consistency issues regarding access to nonexistent array elements). 1067-proposal-revA.pdf 3589 - Created for editorial issues. 5. Next meetings 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Monday July 4 2011 [No meeting, July 4th holiday] Monday July 11 2011<--- ??? Monday July 18 2011 Regular biweekly Monday August 1 2011 Regular biweekly Will send out request for face-to-face meeting last week of July. FOR References: --------------------------------------------------------------------- =========== from June 20 2011 meeting =================== AI: Mehdi, find out from Stu a compiled list of items in draft =========== from June 6 2011 meeting =================== AI: 1356 Brandon: to upload the modified document AI: 3531 Mark : create the modified proposal. - create an sv-ec mantis item for editorial issues =========== from May 23 2011 meeting =================== AI: Mehdi - create an sv-ec mantis item for editorial issues [already done: mantis 3589 ] AI: 1356 Tom to put an example for virtual class extending an IC, virtual classes extending IC is same as extending another virtual class. =========== from May 9 2011 meeting =================== AI: (3278) Francoise to update the 3278 proposal AI: (3293) Arturo - update the proposal in preparation for an email vote. =========== from April 25 2011 meeting =================== AI: 2506 Scott and Mike to update the restrictions (straw poll) =========== from April 11 2011 meeting =================== AI: 3181 unanimously approved AI: 3297 unanimously approved. AI: 2985 unanimously approve: CLOSE as duplicate of 245 AI: 245 CLOSE 245 as already implemented vote: yes Abstain: Gord: The summary says array of queues - not sure that what exists is as general as what was requested. Persistence of elements is a key point with this. AI: 3254 Dave:change the coloring, also no underlining, and add mantis item to the top of the proposal. AI: 2952 unanimously approved AI: 3405 Mehdi The proposal needs be deleted, [Close as duplicate of 2952] AI: 3230 Mehdi contact the svbc - the svec wants to take ownership of 3230 AI: 3230 Gord will update 3230 and scrub related text for any additional changes that might be required. AI: 2900 Dave to update the proposal. =========== from March 28 2011 meeting =================== AI: 2506 Scott to get more input from the user community (Freescale). All, Please respond when information hits the reflector. All, Please consult with the users to get their feedback. =========== from March 14 2011 meeting =================== AI: 2506 All - Scott to send out clarification email to the alias. =========== from February 14 2011 meeting =================== AI: 2506 All - discuss this proposal over email. =========== from January 17 2011 meeting =================== AI: 2848 Mehdi - hold this off for the next 3 or 4 sessions. AI: 1356 Tom/Team state the differences between extensions and inheritance. ============ from December 6 2010 meeting =================== AI: 2845 Francoise - update the proposal with these changes. AI: 2848 Francoise - update the proposal with these changes. AI: 1356 Tom - update the proposal with some of the issues being raised. AI: 1356 all - review the new proposal before the next meeting. ============ from November 22 2010 meeting =================== AI: 2848, 2845; Franocoise update the proposals. AI: 2505; Neil S., update the proposal. AI: 2506; put the proposal into the required format AI: everyone to review and be ready to discuss during next time. ============ from November 8 2010 meeting =================== AI: Minutes; Mehdi - will check for consistency between the left and right sides for the attendance. AI: for 1356 Multiple Inheritance (interface classes) Mehdi - will make a request to the WG on this. General statement about being allowed to work on mantis items that are affected. AI: Jonathan - NULL within $cast AI: Gord - the OVM people would like to have that. Covariant and Contravarianct type extensions. you allow method that do not allow exact type signature of over-written method, but can return the objects of the type of original return type, impact of that would be on Interface classes. AI: Gord - Overwriting of virtual method section AI: Tom - update the proposal (to number 4) ============ from October 25 2010 meeting =================== AI: 1356 Tom - update the proposal, make corrections and more normative text. All - provide more detailed feedback to Tom. ============ from October 11 2010 meeting =================== AI: related to 2505 All - should we allow enum constants to be accessed by the dot? AI: 2953 Mehdi - make 2953 a child of 2506 Mehdi - make a request in this week's P1800 meeting to work on 2506 AI: 2080, 1672, 802 Neil - update the mantis items (3 of them) AI: 251 Mehdi, leave mantis 251 open AI: 2794 Mehdi, reopen mantis item for feedback Jonathan: update AI: 2949 Jonathan: send email to Brad to get clarification on his feedback. ============ from September 27 2010 meeting =================== AI: 3003 Tom - will get feedback on specific examples. (see 18.7 for information on the with-clause) AI: 3003 Jonathan - will get an email discussion going. ============ from September 13 2010 meeting =================== AI: Coverage item Swapnajit - will provide a note for clarification, to be added to Mantis 1802 AI: Coverage item Swapnajit - will put together a proposal for this issue. [related to 19.5.3 wildcard specification] AI: 2848 Francoise - Will do a write-up for this proposal. AI: 2845 Francoise - will try to write-up for this. ============ from August 30 2010 meeting =================== AI:2956 Mehdi making a note to the editor for adding cross reference. AI: 2794 Jonathan will make the friendly amendment. AI:3028 Jonathan create a proposal and upload it for more discussion and vote next meeting. ============ from August 16 2010 meeting =================== AI: 3028 Jonathan - write up the parallel proposals. AI: 2794 Jonathan - add text for the case where indices are x, z AI: 1442 Steven - check if Shalom's comments make this issue moot. AI: 1349 Steven: create the proposal for 1349 AI: 2451 Steven put a proposal together. AI: 2993 Tom; will check internally to see if these meet their needs AI: 2993 Mehdi; upload the email as a note to the mantis item AI: 2993 Arturo; will donate their implementation. ============ from Aguust 2 2010 meeting =================== AI: 1706 Steven put together an email for bc to provide feedback on 4 options Mehdi can send to sv-bc AI: 2993 Swapnajit: add a note to the mantis item as to where we currently are in the process. AI: 2953 Ray - take a look at this one ============ from July 19 2010 meeting =================== AI:Tom get confirmation from users about exact intent of the original request for 3001 AI: Francoise will add a note to the mantis item 2848 AI: Gord will write up a proposal for 3046 AI: Ray will add a bugnote 2999 ============ from June 21 2010 meeting =================== AI/Mehdi - For number 30 on the list, 'no-mantis item 6' send email to Matt about linking this request to mantis 2991. AI/ALL - assigned leaders/champions to start looking at the top 25 items on the list and plan for proposals/discussions/reviews. ============ from June 7 2010 meeting =================== AI/Tom - some examples would be useful [mantis 2987, soft constraints] AI/Cliff - what is actually required. [mantis 2117] Allow extending of covergroups in classes AI/Cliff, John H. - more details on this request, item number 30 [no mantis 6: allow re-use of enumerated names (slide 31) AI/All - find mantis items that can be closed, or easily resolved. - any of the 0.5h estimate items could be considered as well. ============ from May 24 2010 meeting =================== AI/Tom and others: mantis 3002 AOP: any more clarifications from users perspective. AI/users: mantis 1356: Multiple inheritance:what are the particular requests? clarifications. AI/Tom - Mantis 3003, we need more clarification from user base ============ from May 10 2010 meeting =================== AI/Jonathan - create mantis items for No-Mantis-10. Completed action items: ============ from April 26 2010 meeting =================== AI/Mehdi - add a column for enhancement versus clarification AI/Mehdi - add a column for amount of work required. AI/Mehdi - add sheets for the various categores in the Google doc. AI/Mehdi - send out a link to the p1800 spreadsheet. AI/Mehdi - add a column for duplicates AI/All - send input on the list of categories. AI/ALL - until May 5th to provide any inputs on the spreadsheet. ============ from April 12 2010 meeting =================== AI/Mehdi - Look at the Google Docs and creaet spreadsheet for collaborative efforts. Also add cross committee column to the spreadsheet. AI/All - send inputs on any new items by April 24 2010, this is deadline for any item that is not already in the mantis database. AI/All - prioritize and categorize list of items that are in the spreadsheet to be reviewed during the next two sv-ec meetings. AI/Neil - email to cliff on proxy right --------------------------------------------- Summary table: Assigned Lead/Champions --------------------------------------------- 1 2848 Francoise 2 3002 Tom, Dave, Jonathan, Francoise, Arturo, Neil S., Cliff, Gord 3 3046 Gord, Franocise, Mark, Ray 4 1356 Tom [same with 3002] 5 3001 Jonathan, Tom, Francoise 6 2999 Tom, Ray, Arturo, 7 3003 [2987, 2988] Jonathan, Tom, Ray, Arturo, 8 3082 Daniel, Jonathan, 9 2845 Francoise, Mark, Alex Neil S., Gord? 10 2956 Steven, 11 2505 Neil S., Mark, Francoise 12 2735 Arturo, Steven, Gord, 13 1706 Mark, Steven, Francoise, 14 2488 Steven, Francoise, 15 2112 Dave, Steven, 16 3028 Arturo, Ray, Neil S., Mehdi, 17 2950 Francoise, 18 2794 Jonathan, Steven 19 2993 Tom, Ray, Swapnajit (cadence) 20 1442 Steven, 21 2953 Ray 22 1349 Steven 23 2949 Jonathan, Steven 24 2451 Steven, 25 2987 Jonathan (combining 2987, 2988, see 3003) ------------------------------------- [next 10] 26 3006 Ray, Steven, 27 3004 Tom 28 2998 Tom 29 2117 Cliff?? 30 No Mantis 6 could be linked with 2991 with sv-bc 31 2928 Ray, Arturo, 32 2787 ?? (Daniel)?? 33 2972 ?? (Daniel)?? 34 2996 Tom, 35 2988 already assigned (see 3003) 36 No Mantis 4 related to AOP (already covered) -------------------------------------------------------------- == List with estimates ======= hrs top 2t mantis Id 4 1 2848 12 2 3002 1 3 3046 16 4 1356 2 5 3001 3 6 2999 5 7 3003 8 8 3082 4 9 2845 0.5 10 2956 3 11 2505 4 12 2735 1 13 1706 2 14 2488 2 15 2112 2 16 3028 2 17 2950 1 18 2794 4 19 2993 0.5 20 1442 6 21 2953 0.5 22 1349 0.5 23 2949 4 24 2451 4 25 2987 92 total 46 (2hr sessions) 0.5 26 3006 4 27 3004 2 28 2998 4 29 2117 4 30 No Mantis 6 0.5 31 2928 4 32 2787 2 33 2972 2 34 2996 0 35 2988 0 36 No Mantis 4 23 total 11 sessions ====================================== top 25 Id Number of Votes weighted vote Summary Degrees of difficulty Cateogory Sub-Category 1 2848 7 159 Is it legal to assign an interface containing class declaration to a virtual interface med Virtual Interface and class 2 3002 8 125 Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) features High class constraints 3 3046 8 112 Dotted names within inlined constraints Low class Strings/Arrays 4 1356 6 112 Multiple Inheritance High class Strings 5 3001 9 102 Proper Polymorphic behavior of instantiation low class Arrays 6 2999 7 99 Class Handle reference inside of Constraints med class constraints 7 3003 6 98 Constraint Composition High Randomization Strings 8 3082 7 96 (4) Ambiguity resolution (see slide 10 for examples of parts of the Standard that have been interpreted differently by different simulators) 9 2845 4 84 virtual interface type checking versus interface type that had been defparam'ed high Virtual Interface Misc / function proto 10 2956 4 76 clarify class 'process' definition (9.7 vs 18.13.3, 18.13.4, 18.13.5) low Process control 11 2505 4 76 class select: what is allowed after the dot? low class 12 2735 4 73 Ballot Comment #48: Chaining of method calls med class constraints 13 1706 4 72 Meaning of static prefix for virtual interface assignments Virtual Interfaces 14 2488 4 69 Are virtual method calls legal within class constructors? med VI OO classes 15 2112 6 69 Remove restrictions on NBA assigments to class members med class constraints 16 3028 6 68 constraints for unique array elements. Med Randomization 17 2950 4 67 virtual method prototype matching low class 18 2794 4 64 Clarify queue methods return status low class 19 2993 4 63 Cross cover points across different cover groups med Built-in Methods 20 1442 3 63 Clocking blocks legal in modports, missing from text description in 20.9 Functional Coverage 21 2953 6 61 Algorithmic generation of covergroup bin contents high clocking block 22 1349 5 61 fork/join_none: what if parent thread terminates without blocking statement? Functional Coverage 23 2949 4 60 LRM is silent about the semantics of referencing a clocking block output low Process control constraints 24 2451 6 58 Omitting body defaults med clocking block constraints 25 2987 6 56 Soft Constraints med class Misc / function proto 26 3006 5 55 LRM doesn't say explicitly what should happen if null pointer is randomized low class Data Types 27 3004 5 55 Ability to declare/qualify classes/methods/variables/constraints final med class Virtual Interface 28 2998 4 55 Solve Before enhanced low Randomization class 29 2117 3 52 Allow extending of covergroups in classes high Functional Coverage class 30 No Mantis 6 5 51 (3) Allow reuse of enumerated names (slide 31) cross-committee Randomization 31 2928 3 50 ambiguous restriction on function calls in constraint expressions low Randomization Randomization 32 2787 3 50 reference via scope operator to parametrized superclass item med class Randomization 33 2972 3 49 add class constructor/method, task/function overloading High class Randomization 34 2996 4 49 Method overloading High class Randomization 35 2988 2 48 Defaults Constraints med Randomization Process control 36 No Mantis 4 2 47 (1) AOP when-inheritance (slide 31) Class/AOP Functional Coverage