SystemVerilog Coding Guidelines: Package import versus `include

Another frequently asked question: Should I import my classes from a package or `include them? To answer this properly, you need to know more about SystemVerilog’s type system, especially the difference between its strong and weak typing systems.

In programming languages, weak typing is characterized by implicit  or ad-hoc conversions without explicit casting between values of different data types. Verilog’s bit vectors, or integral types, represent these weak typing aspects by implicitly padding and truncating values to be the proper bit lengths – at least proper by Verilog standards. If you perform a bitwise AND of a 7-bit and 8-bit vector, Verilog implicitly zero pads an 8th bit to the 7-bit operand and returns an 8-bit result. In contrast using VHDL, you would have to explicitly state whether you wanted the 7-bit operand to be padded, or the 8-bit operand to be truncated so that you have an expression with operands of equal size.

With a few exceptions, all other types in SystemVerilog follow strong typing rules. Strong typing rules require explicit conversions or casts when assigning or expressing operands of unequal types. And understanding what SystemVerilog considers equivalent types is key to understanding the effect of importing a class from a package versus including it from a file.

Inheritance aside, SystemVerilog uses the name of a type alone to determine type equivalence of a class. For example, suppose I have these two class definitions A and B below:

class A;
int i;
endclass : A
class B;
int i;
endclass : B

SystemVerilog considers these two class definitions unequal types because they have different names, even though their contents, or class bodies, are identical. The name of a class includes more than just the simple names A and B; the names also include the scope where the definition is declared. When you declare a class in a package, the package name becomes a prefix to the class name:

package P;
class A;
int i;
endclass : A
A a1;
endpackage : P
package Q;
class A;
int i;
endclass : A
A a1;
endpackage : Q

Now there are two definitions of class A, one called P::A and the other called Q::A. And the variables P::a1 and Q::a1 are type incompatible referencing two different class A’s. Re-writing the above example using an include file creates the same situation – two incompatible class definitions.

File File File
class A;
int i;
endclass : A
package P;
`include “"
A a1;
endpackage : P
package Q;
`include “"
A a1;
endpackage : Q

After `including class A into each package, you wind up with two definitions of class A. Using `include is just a shortcut for cut and pasting text in a file. Importing a name from a package does not duplicate text; it makes that name visible from another package without copying the definition.

File File File File
class A;
int i;
endclass : A
package P;
`include “"
endpackage : P
package R;
import P::A;
A a1;
endpackage : R
package S;
import P::A;
A a1;
endpackage : S

Class A is declared in package P, and only in package P. The variables R::a1 and S::a1 are type compatible because they are both of type P::A. The fact that class A was `included from another file once it is expanded is no longer relevant once you consider the placement of the text from the file.

When you get compiler errors claiming that two types are incompatible even though they appear to have the same name, make sure you consider the scope where the types are declared as part of the full name. Class names declared in a module are prefixed by the module instance name, so the same module instantiated multiple times will create unique class names, all incompatible types.

For further information about packages, check out the June Verification Horizons article entitled “Using SystemVerilog Packages in Real Verification Projects”.

Dave Rich

Post Author

Posted July 13th, 2010, by

Post Tags

, , ,

Post Comments


About Verification Horizons BLOG

This blog will provide an online forum to provide weekly updates on concepts, values, standards, methodologies and examples to assist with the understanding of what advanced functional verification technologies can do and how to most effectively apply them. We're looking forward to your comments and suggestions on the posts to make this a useful tool. Verification Horizons BLOG

@dennisbrophy Tweets

  • Loading tweets...

@dave_59 Tweets

  • Loading tweets...

@jhupcey Tweets

  • Loading tweets...


21 comments on this post | ↓ Add Your Own

Commented on July 13, 2010 at 11:11 pm
By Greg Jaxon

Excellent illustration, Dave!

What you say about classes also applies to most structs, unions, and enums, too.

One situation to watch is `includes into the $unit scope (outside any module or other part description). Whether the same include file brought into the $unit scope of distinct files can create matching types is a delicate matter; users probably should not expect SV implementations to agree on every case of this.

Good thing packages are so easy to use to get this right!

Commented on July 17, 2010 at 11:34 am
By Vishnu

Excelent Article Dave

Commented on February 8, 2011 at 6:57 am
By Pranav Joshi

This is an excellent piece of explanation. I must use this to train engineers of my team.

Commented on June 28, 2011 at 5:07 pm
By geonerstiem


Commented on July 7, 2011 at 1:40 am

good article, thanks or sharing, Dave.

Commented on September 9, 2011 at 12:00 pm
By Mark Curry

In the final solution – why bother using the include at all? The file’s not included anywhere else – just put the definition in the ‘P’ package and be done with it.

Commented on September 9, 2011 at 1:02 pm
By Dave Rich

Hi Mark,
When you package starts having class A, B, C, etc. you need separate files for better revision control. Then `include shows the required file dependencies and compilation order.

Commented on April 16, 2012 at 3:42 pm
By omer

Hello Dave,

Thank you very much for progressive explanation. I have been trying to understand the difference between the two a while now as I am new to OOP.

Take care

Commented on September 12, 2012 at 10:01 am
By Dave Rich

You can certainly use ‘extern’ to separate class declarations from method declarations, but the methods must be defined before closing the scope. So everything has to be inside the package.
For example
package p;
`include “myclass_declarations.svh”
`include “myclass_methods.svh”

Commented on July 3, 2013 at 9:57 pm

Hi Dave,

can you give an example of how P::A is type incompatible with Q::A (when you are showing the effects of `include).

It would be nice if you can show a snippet of code that demonstrates the type incompatibility issue between the two variables.

Commented on July 8, 2013 at 7:15 am
By Dave Rich


The code shown in the example showing the effects of `include behaves exactly as the previous example where package P and Q are defined without `include. So if you had

P::A handle_a1;
Q::A handle_a2;
handle_a1 = new();
handle_a2=handle_a1; // this is illegal

Commented on September 16, 2013 at 2:40 pm
By Linh Nguyen

Very clear, thank you!

Commented on January 21, 2014 at 6:24 am
By Surya

HI Dave,

That’s a great explanation. Here is some issue I am facing with my compiler (vcs):

package test_lib_pkg;

import uvm_pkg::*;
`include “uvm_macros.svh”

import bus_agent_pkg::*;
import bus_seq_lib_pkg::*;

`include “”


My compiler give me an error saying, “file could not be found” when this included file is not in the same dir as my Makefile is, or else if both are in the same dir it comiples without error. Now how do I tell my compiler to look into the same dir where my pakage files are ?

Commented on January 21, 2014 at 8:17 am
By Dave Rich

This is a tool issue, not a language issue. Please contact your vendor for support.

Commented on April 24, 2014 at 10:18 am
By Soha Sayed

Thank you DAVE .. you are a life saver :) .. CHAPEAU!

Commented on May 27, 2014 at 12:18 am
By mukesh

Hi Dave,
Thanx for ur wonderful explanation .

Commented on September 20, 2014 at 8:23 am
By Christopher

Thanks for finally talking about > SystemVerilog Coding
Guidelines: Package import versus `include

[…] SystemVerilog Coding Guidelines: Package import versus `include « Verification Horizons BLOG. […]

Commented on March 13, 2015 at 12:59 am
By Yogaraj

Hi Dave,
Can you explain me the relationship between comparison scope and comparison unit with respect to import package and include

Commented on March 16, 2015 at 9:55 am
By Dave Rich

Hi Yogaraj,

I assume you meant “compilation” not “comparison”. If so, please read and let me know if you have more questions. And remember, `include is just a text processor that knows nothing about the text it is including.

Add Your Comment


March 2015
  • March 2015 Edition of Verification Horizons Available Online!
  • Part 2: The 2014 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • February 2015
  • Is Gate-Level Simulation Still Required Nowadays??
  • From Tightly Coupled (Loosely Bolted) to Verification Convergence!
  • Portable Stimulus at DVCon
  • Portable Stimulus: A Small Step in Standardization
  • Part 1: The 2014 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • January 2015
  • Understanding and Minimizing Study Bias
  • Prologue: The 2014 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Who Knew VIP?
  • 3 Notable Formal-Related Conference Papers of 2014
  • December 2014
  • Latest Issue of Verification Horizons Available!
  • November 2014
  • SystemVerilog Testbench Debug – Are we having fun yet?
  • ARM® Techcon Paper Report: How Microsoft Saved 4 Man-Months Meeting Their Coverage Closure Goals Using Automated Verification Management & Formal Apps
  • Preparing for the Perfect Storm with New-School Verification Techniques
  • On-Demand Webinar: UVM Sequences in Depth
  • October 2014
  • DVCon India: A Smashing Hit!
  • September 2014
  • Portable and Productive Test Creation with Graph-Based Stimulus
  • Supporting A Season of Learning
  • August 2014
  • DVCon Goes Global!
  • Better Late Than Never: Magical Verification Horizons DAC Edition
  • July 2014
  • Accellera Approves UVM 1.2
  • May 2014
  • Getting More Value from your Stimulus Constraints
  • The FPGA Verification Window Is Open
  • April 2014
  • UVM DVCon 2014 Tutorial Video Online
  • Mentor Enterprise Verification Platform Debuts
  • March 2014
  • New Verification Academy ABV Course
  • DVCon 2014 Issue of Verification Horizons Now Available
  • February 2014
  • DVCon–The FREE Side
  • More DVCon–More Mentor Tutorials!
  • UVM 1.2: Open Public Review
  • DVCon 2014: Standards on Display
  • Just because FPGAs are programmable doesn’t mean verification is dead
  • January 2014
  • Managing Verification Coverage Information
  • November 2013
  • Epilogue: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • New Verification Horizons Issue Available
  • October 2013
  • Happy Halloween from ARM TechCon
  • IEEE Standards Association Symposium on EDA Interoperability
  • STMicroelectronics: Simulation + Emulation = Verification Success
  • September 2013
  • A Decade of SystemVerilog: Unifying Design and Verification?
  • Part 12: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • August 2013
  • Part 11: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 10: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 9: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 8: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • July 2013
  • Part 7: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Walking in the Desert or Drinking from a Fire Hose?
  • Part 6: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • A Short Class on SystemVerilog Classes
  • Part 5: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 4: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • June 2013
  • Part 3: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 2: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • May 2013
  • Texas-Sized DAC Edition of Verification Horizons Now Up on Verification Academy
  • IEEE 1801™-2013 UPF Standard Is Published
  • Part 1: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • What’s the deal with those wire’s and reg’s in Verilog
  • April 2013
  • Getting AMP’ed Up on the IEEE Low-Power Standard
  • Prologue: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • March 2013
  • Even More UVM Debug in Questa 10.2
  • IEEE Approves New Low Power Standard
  • February 2013
  • Verification Horizons DVCon Issue Now Available
  • Get your IEEE 1800-2012 SystemVerilog LRM at no charge
  • IEEE 1800™-2012 SystemVerilog Standard Is Published
  • See You at DVCon 2013!
  • Get Ready for SystemVerilog 2012
  • January 2013
  • VHDL Update Comes to Verification Academy!
  • December 2012
  • IEEE Approves Revised SystemVerilog Standard
  • November 2012
  • Coverage Cookbook Debuts
  • October 2012
  • IoT: Internet of Things
  • Check out the October, 2012 Verification Horizons
  • Improving simulation results with formal-based technology
  • Introducing “Verification Academy 2.0”
  • September 2012
  • OVM Gets Connected
  • August 2012
  • OpenStand & EDA Standardization
  • July 2012
  • Synthesizing Hardware Assertions and Post-Silicon Debug
  • Virtual Emulation for Debugging
  • Verification Academy: Up Close & Personal
  • SystemC Standardization Cycle Completes
  • Verification Standards Take Another Step Forward
  • New UVM Recipe of the Month: Scoreboarding in UVM
  • June 2012
  • Intelligent Testbench Automation – Catching on Fast
  • May 2012
  • Two Articles You Need to Check Out
  • Off to DAC!
  • Dave Rich Featured on EEWeb
  • March 2012
  • How Did I Get Here?
  • February 2012
  • Expanding the Verification Academy!
  • Get on the Fast Track to Advanced Verification with UVM Express
  • Introducing UVM Connect
  • Tornado Alert!!!
  • UVM: Some Thoughts Before DVCon
  • UVM™ at DVCon 2012
  • January 2012
  • SystemC 2011 Standard Published
  • Verification solutions that help reduce bug cost
  • December 2011
  • Instant Replay for Debugging SoC Level Simulations
  • 2011 IEEE Design Automation Standards Awards
  • November 2011
  • Getting started with the UVM – Using the Register Modeling package
  • TLM Becomes an IEEE Standard
  • October 2011
  • Worlds Standards Day 2011
  • VHS or Betamax?
  • Verification Issues Take Center Stage
  • September 2011
  • New UVM Recipe-of-the-Month: Sequence Layering
  • July 2011
  • Combining Intelligent Testbench Automation with Constrained Random Testing
  • Going from “Standards Development” to “Standards Practice”
  • Verification Academy Now Includes OVMWorld Content
  • June 2011
  • Intelligent Testbench Automation Delivers 10X to 100X Faster Functional Verification
  • Part 9: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Verification Horizons DAC Issue Now Available Online
  • Accellera & OSCI Unite
  • The IEEE’s Most Popular EDA Standards
  • UVM Register Kit Available for OVM 2.1.2
  • May 2011
  • Part 8: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Getting Your Standards Update @ DAC 2011
  • April 2011
  • User-2-User’s Functional Verification Track
  • Part 7: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 6: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • SystemC Day 2011 Videos Available Now
  • Part 5: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 4: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 3: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • March 2011
  • Part 2: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Part 1: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Prologue: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
  • Language Transitions: The Dawning of Age of Aquarius
  • Using the UVM libraries with Questa
  • February 2011
  • DVCon: The Present and the Future
  • Free at Last! UVM1.0 is Here!
  • Parameterized Classes, Static Members and the Factory Macros
  • IEEE Standards in India
  • January 2011
  • Accellera Approves New Co-Emulation Standard
  • December 2010
  • New Verification Horizons: Methodologies Don’t Have to be Scary
  • The Survey Says: Verification Planning
  • October 2010
  • Towards UVM Register Package Interoperability
  • IEC’s 47th General Assembly Meeting Opens
  • UVM: Giving Users What They Want
  • September 2010
  • UVM Takes Shape in the Accellera VIP-TSC
  • Accellera VIP-TSC Selects RAL for UVM 1.0 Register Package
  • OVM Cookbook Available from
  • UVM Register Package Candidate News
  • August 2010
  • Redefining Verification Performance (Part 2)
  • July 2010
  • Making formal property checking easy to use
  • Redefining Verification Performance (Part 1)
  • SystemVerilog Coding Guidelines: Package import versus `include
  • June 2010
  • The reports of OVM’s death are greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain)
  • New Verification Academy Advanced OVM (&UVM) Module
  • OVM/UVM @DAC: The Dog That Didn’t Bark
  • DAC: Day 1; An Ode to an Old Friend
  • UVM: Joint Statement Issued by Mentor, Cadence & Synopsys
  • Static Verification
  • OVM/UVM at DAC 2010
  • DAC Panel: Bridging Pre-Silicon Verification and Post-Silicon Validation
  • Accellera’s DAC Breakfast & Panel Discussion
  • May 2010
  • Easier UVM Testbench Construction – UVM Sequence Layering
  • North American SystemC User Group (NASCUG) Meeting at DAC
  • An Extension to UVM: The UVM Container
  • UVM Register Package 2.0 Available for Download
  • Accellera’s OVM: Omnimodus Verification Methodology
  • High-Level Design Validation and Test (HLDVT) 2010
  • New OVM Sequence Layering Package – For Easier Tests
  • OVM 2.0 Register Package Released
  • OVM Extensions for Testbench Reuse
  • April 2010
  • SystemC Day Videos from DVCon Available Now
  • On Committees and Motivations
  • The Final Signatures (the meeting during the meeting)
  • UVM Adoption: Go Native-UVM or use OVM Compatibility Kit?
  • UVM-EA (Early Adopter) Starter Kit Available for Download
  • Accellera Adopts OVM 2.1.1 for its Universal Verification Methodology (UVM)
  • March 2010
  • The Art of Deprecation
  • OVM 2.1.1 Now Ready for Download
  • February 2010 Verification Horizons Newsletter Now Available
  • IEEE Standards Meetings in India
  • February 2010
  • I Do It …
  • SystemVerilog: A time for change? Maybe not.
  • Partners Offer Support for OVM 1.0 Register Package
  • SystemC Day at DVCon
  • OVM/VMM Interoperability Kit: It’s Ready!
  • January 2010
  • Three Perfect 10’s
  • OVM 1.0 Register Package Released
  • Accellera Adopts OVM
  • SystemC (IEEE Std. 1666™) Comes to YouTube
  • Debugging requires a multifaceted solution
  • December 2009
  • A Cliffhanger ABV Seminar, Jan 19, Santa Clara, CA
  • Truth in Labeling: VMM2.0
  • IEEE Std. 1800™-2009 (SystemVerilog) Ready for Purchase & Download
  • December Verification Horizons Issue Out
  • Evolution is a tinkerer
  • It Is Better to Give than It Is to Receive
  • Zombie Alert! (Can the CEDA DTC “User Voice” Be Heard When They Won’t Let You Listen)
  • DVCon is Just Around the Corner
  • The “Standards Corner” Becomes a Blog
  • I Am Honored to Honor
  • IEEE Standards Association Awards Ceremony
  • ABV and being from Missouri…
  • Time hogs, blogs, and evolving underdogs…
  • Full House – and this is no gamble!
  • Welcome to the Verification Horizons Blog!
  • September 2009
  • SystemVerilog: The finer details of $unit versus $root.
  • SystemVerilog Coding Guidelines
  • July 2009
  • The Language versus The Methodology
  • May 2009
  • Are Program Blocks Necessary?