In the last year, I’ve started from scratch writing Verilog for hardware design. Coming from a software background where I was mainly using C/C++ and Python, it has been interesting to experience the contrasting philosophy and mindset associated with using a language to describe hardware circuits. Much of this is because Verilog provides little abstraction of hardware structures, and only through disciplined/idiomatic use, can efficient designs be implemented. A compounding issue is that complex hardware designs rely on a complex ecosystem of proprietary tooling.

As I see it, there are three aspects to writing synthesizable Verilog code: the particular features of the language to use, the style and idioms employed in using those features, and the tooling support for a design.

The language

A subset of Verilog is used for specifying synthesizable circuits. Verilog (which subsumed SystemVerilog as of the 2009 standardisation) is a unified language, serving distinct purposes of modern hardware design. These are:

  • circuit design/specification at different levels of abstraction:
    • behavioural
    • structural/register-transfer level (RTL)
    • gate
    • switch/transistor;
  • testbench-based verification;
  • specification of formal properties; and
  • specification of functional coverage.

The language provides specific features to serve each of these purposes. For hardware synthesis, each level of abstraction uses a different language subset, generally with fewer features at lower levels. Behavioural design uses the procedural features of Verilog (with little regard for the structural realisation of the circuit). RTL design specifies a circuit in terms of data flow through registers and logical operations. Gate- and switch-level design use only primitive operations. Typical modern hardware design uses a mix of register-transfer- and gate-level design.

It is interesting to note however that the specification of Verilog does not specify which features are synthesizable; that depends on the tooling used.

Coding style

Good coding style can help achieve better results in synthesis and simulation, as well as producing code that contains less errors and is understandable, reusable, and easily modifiable. Many of the observations in this note relate to coding style.


There is a variety of standard tooling that is used with Verilog, and indeed other hardware description languages (HDLs). This includes simulation, formal analysis/model checking, formal equivalence checking, coverage analysis, synthesis and physical layout, known collectively as electronic design automation tools (EDA). Since standard EDA tooling is developed and maintained as proprietary and closed-source software by companies like Cadence, Synopsis and Mentor, the tooling options are multiplied.

In contrast with the open-source software ecosystems of programming languages (for example), closed-source EDA tools do not benefit from the scale and momentum of open projects, in the way that conventional software languages do, with a one (or perhaps two) compilers and associated tooling such as debuggers and program analysers. Such a fragmented ecosystem inevitably has a larger variability in precisely how features of the Verilog language are implemented and which features are not supported, particularly since there is no standard synthesizable subset. Consequently, engineers using Verilog/HDLs with proprietary EDA tools do so conservatively, sticking to a lowest common denominator of the language features (within their chosen synthesizable subset), to ensure compatibility and good results.


This note records some interesting Verilog approaches and coding styles that I’ve observed that are used to interact well with the supporting tooling and to produce good synthesis results. I’ve written it as a note to myself, so it has the caveats that it assumes a familiarity with Verilog programming and that it’s not a comprehensive guide to Verilog programming practices; some of the references at the end will serve those purposes better.

My observations here are in the context of work on an implementation of a pipelined processor, as such different approaches may be taken with other types of electronic design. I also owe many of these insights to the guidance from my colleagues.

The remaining sections are as follows:

Combinatorial logic

Use always_comb instead of always for combinatorial logic. The always_comb procedure allows tools to check that it does not contain any latched state and that no other processes assign to variables appearing on the left-hand side. (It’s worth checking the language reference manual (LRM) for details of of the other differences.) The use of an always_comb block is also a much clearer indication of a combinatorial block that the use of = as opposed to <=.

Always provide an initial value. A latch will be inferred if there exists a control-flow path in which a value of a signal is not set. Since always_comb specifically precludes the creation of latches, doing so will cause a warning or error in simulation or synthesis. For example, the following code implies a latch since there is no assignment to foo when the condition is not true.

  if (condition)
    foo = 1'b1;

Instead, always provide an initial value:

  foo = 1'b0;
  if (condition)
    foo = 1'b1;

Avoid reading and writing a signal in an always_comb block. The sensitivity list includes variables and expressions but it excludes variables that occur on the right-hand side of assignments. According to these restrictions, a variable that is read and written in a block only causes the block to be reevaluated when the left-hand-side instance changes. However, this style can cause some tools to warn of a simulation-synthesis mismatch (presumably because they apply conservative rules from older versions of the language standard).

In the following code, the block is triggered only when the the right-hand-side foo changes, rather than entering a feedback loop where it shifts continuously:

  foo = foo << 1;

To avoid reading and writing foo in the same block and possible warnings from tools, a new signal can be introduced:

  next_foo = foo << 1;

Where possible extract logic into assign statements. Extract single assignments to a variable into a separate assign statement, where it is possible to do so. This approach uses the features of Verilog consistently, rather than using two mechanisms to achieve the same effect. This makes it clear that an always_comb is used to introduce sequentiality. Another opportunity to move logic into separate assign statements is with complex expressions, such as the Boolean value for a conditional statement. Doing this makes the control flow structure clearer, potentially provide opportunities for reuse, and provides a separate signal when inspecting the signals in a waveform viewer.

Avoid unnecessary sequentiality. It is easy to add statements to an always_comb to expand its behaviour, but this should only be done when there are true sequential dependencies between statements in the block. In general, parallelism should be exposed where ever possible. In the the following example, the sequentiality is not necessary since the output set_foo depends independently on the various conditions:

always_comb begin
  set_foo = 1'b0;
  if (signal_a &&
    set_foo = 1'b1;
  if (signal_c ||
    set_foo = 1'b1;
  if (signal_e)
    set_foo = 1'b1;

Clearly the sequencing of the conditions is not necessary, so the block could be transformed to separate the logic for each condition into separate parallel processes (extracting into assign statements as per the rule above) and explicitly combine them with the implied logical disjunction of the original block:

assign condition_a = signal_a && signal_b;
assign condition_b = signal_c || signal_d;
always_comb begin
  set_foo = 1'b0;
  if (condition_a ||
      condition_b ||
    set_foo = 1'b1;

It is recommended by the author of Verilator to split up always blocks (combinatorial or sequential) so they contain as few statements as possible. This allows Verilator the most freedom to order the code to improve execution performance.

Drive one signal per block. With complex control flow statements, it is tempting to use a single always_comb block to drive multiple signals. In some circumstances, there may be good reasons to do this, such as when many output signals are used in a similar way, but in the general case, splitting each signal into a separate block makes it clear what logic involved in driving that signal, and as such, facilitates further simplification.

An additional reason to avoid driving multiple signals per always_comb block is that Verilator can infer a dependence between two signals, leading to false circular combinatorial loops. In these cases, it issues an UPOPTFLAT warning and cannot optimise the path, leading to reduced emulation performance. Generally, fixing warnings pertaning to unoptimisable constructs can improve Verilator’s simulation performance by up to a factor of two.

always_comb begin
  foo = foo_q;
  bar = bar_q;
  if (condition_a)
    case (condition_b)
      0: begin
        foo = ...;
        if (condition_c)
          bar = ...;
      1: foo = ...;
      2: bar = ...;

The above block could be split into two processes:

always_comb begin
  foo = foo_q;
  if (condition_a)
    case (condition_b)
      0: foo = ...;
      1: foo = ...;

always_comb begin
  bar = bar_q;
  if (condition_a)
    case (condition_b)
      0: if (condition_b)
           bar = ...;
      2: bar = ...;

Sequential logic

Use always_ff instead of always for sequential logic Similarly to always_comb, use of always_ff permits tools to check that the procedure only contains sequential logic behaviour (no timing controls and only one event control) that variables on the left-hand side are not written to by any other process, and makes clear the intent for sequential logic behaviour with non-blocking assignments, <=.

Avoid adding logic to non-blocking assignments. This is primarily a matter of taste, but having non-blocking assignments in always_ff blocks only from a logic signal name, rather than a logical expression, keeps the block simple and limits combinatorial logic to always_comb blocks and assign statements elsewhere in the module. Since synthesizable always_ffs are additionally restricted in that variables assigned to must have a reset condition of a constant value, maintaining this clarity aids the programmer. Having separate combinatorial blocks is also useful since it allows the logic signal driving a flip-flop as well as the registered value to be apparent in a waveform viewer, particularly when clock gates are used.

A typical pattern when implementing combinatorial logic and registers is to define the set and clear conditions in an always_comb and register the value in an accompanying always_ff, for example:

logic bit;
logic bit_q;

always_comb begin
  bit <= bit_q;
  if (set_condition)
    bit = 1'b1;
  if (clear_condition)
    bit = 1'b0;

always_ff @(posedge i_clk or posedge i_rst)
  if (i_rst)
    bit_q <= 1'b0;
    bit_q <= bit;

If statements

Use if qualifiers for single if and chained if-else statements for additional checking and guidance to synthesis:

  • unique to ensure exactly one condition is matched and to indicate the conditions can be checked in parallel.
  • unique0 to ensure one or no conditions match and to indicate the conditions can be checked in parallel.
  • priority to ensure one condition is matched and to indicate the conditions should be evaluated in sequence and only the body of the first matching condition is evaluated.

Note that:

  • The use of an else precludes violation reports for non-existing matches in unique and priority.
  • The default behaviour of a chained if-else block is priority but without any violation checks.

For example, when the conditions are mutually exclusive, so evaluation order is not important:

unique if (condition_a) statement;
else if (condition_b) statement;
else if (condition_c) statement;

A violation warning is given in the above when no condition or multiple conditions are selected. Changing to unique0 will only check for multiple conditions being selected:

unique0 if (condition_a) statement;

And adding an else will suppress violation warnings all together:

unique0 if (condition_a) statement;
else statement;

Case statements

Use case qualifiers for additional checking and guidance to synthesis:

  • unique to ensure exactly one condition is matched and to indicate the conditions can be checked in parallel.
  • unique0 to ensure that one or no conditions are matched and to indicate the conditions can be checked in parallel.
  • priority to ensure one condition is matched and to indicate the conditions should be evaluated in sequence and only the body of the first matching case is evaluated.

Note that:

  • The use of a default case precludes violation reports for non-existing matches in unique and priority.
  • The default behaviour of a case statement is that of priority, but without violation checks.

Use case (...) inside instead of casex or casez for matching don’t care bits. Since set-membership case (...) inside matches ? don’t care bits in the same way casez does, it should be used for clarity unless matching xs or zs is specifically required. For example:

logic [3:0] state_q;
case (state_q) inside
  4'b000?: statement;
  4'b01?0: statement;
  4'b110?: statement;

Use case (1'b1) for one-hot conditions. For example:

logic [2:0] status_q;
unique case (1'b1) inside
  status_q[0]: statement;
  status_q[1]: statement;
  status_q[2]: statement;

As an aside, it is convenient to define a one-hot encoding in a union type with another struct to provide named access to each member. For example, status_q above could be redefined as:

typedef enum logic [2:0] {
  STATUS_START = 3'b001,
  STATUS_END   = 3'b010,
  STATUS_ERROR = 3'b100
} status_enum_t;
typedef union packed {
  status_enum_t u;
  struct packed {
    logic status_start;
    logic status_end;
    logic status_error;
  } ctrl;
} status_t;
status_t status_q;

Minimise the amount of logic inside a case statement. The rationale for this is similar to extracting logic from always_comb blocks into assign statements where possible: to make the control flow structure clearer to the designer and tooling, and to provide opportunities for reuse or further simplification. For example, avoid nesting case statements:

status_t status_q;
status_t next_status;
logic [3:0] mode_q;
always_comb begin
  next_status = state_q;
  unique case(1'b1)
      unique0 case (mode) inside
        4'b0?00: next_status = STATUS_ERROR;
        default: next_status = STATUS_END;
    status_q.ctrl.status_end: ...;
    status_q.ctrl.status_error: ...;

And instead extract a nested case into a separate process, providing a result signal to use in the parent case:

status_t status_q;
status_t next_status;
status_t start_next_status;
logic [3:0] mode_q;
always_comb begin
  start_next_status = state_q;
  case (mode_q) inside
    4'b0?00: start_next_status = STATUS_ERROR;
    default: start_next_status = STATUS_END;
always_comb begin
  unique case(1'b1)
    status_q.ctrl.status_start: next_status = start_next_status;
    status_q.ctrl.status_end: ...;
    status_q.ctrl.status_error: ...;

Although this example seems simple, the case-based logic driving a state machine can quickly become complicated.


Make operator associativity explicit. This is to avoid any ambiguity over the ordering of operators. In particular, always bracket the condition of a ternary/conditional expression (?:), especially if you are nesting them, since they associate left to right, and all other arithmetic and logical operators associate right to left.

... = (a && b) ||
      (c && d)
... = |(a[7:0] & b[7:0])
... = valid && (|a[3:0])
... = (a == b) ? c : d
... = cond_a              ? e1 :
      (cond_b && !cond_c) ? e2 :
... = !(a[1:0] inside {2'b00, 2'b01}) &&

Make expression bit lengths explicit. Although the Verilog language specification provides rules for the extension of operands as inputs to binary operations and assignments, these are complicated and not always obvious. In particular, the extension is determined either by the operands or by the context of the expression. Since there may be inconsistencies between tools, particularly between simulation and synthesis, explicitly specifying expression bit widths avoids these issues and makes the intent obvious. For example, pad the result of a narrower expression for assignment:

logic [31:0] result;
logic [7:0] op1, op2;
assign result = {24'b0, {op1 & op2}};

Use an explicit type cast to specify the width of an intermediate expression (note that integer literals are interpreted as 32-bit integers):

always_ff @(posedge i_clk or posedge i_rst)
  value_q <= i_rst ? value_t'(42) : value;

Special care should be taken with sub expressions, since their result length is determined automatically by the width of the largest operand. For example, without an explicit type cast to a 17-bit result around a + b, the carry out bit would be lost:

logic [15:0] result, a b;
typedef logic [16:0] sum_t;
assign result = sum_t'(a + b) >> 1;

Capture carry out bits (even if they are unused) so the left-hand-side assignment width matches the full width of the right hand side. Using a prefix like unused_ makes the process of signing off any related warnings with the downstream synthesis and physical build simpler:

assign {unused_co, result} = a + b;

Exceptions to this rule can be made for the common constants 0, 1 and -1 to be specified as integer literals, for example:

assign result = 0;
assign sum = value - 1;

Use signed types for signed arithmetic, and avoid implementing signed arithmetic with manual sign extensions. Verilog uses the signedness of an expression to determine how to extend its width (as well as inferring signedness of parent expressions). Since the rules for sign determination is similar to expression size but not the same, making it explicit avoids errors. It also facilitates the use of optimised arithmetic implementations in synthesis, particularly with multipliers. The following example (adapted from this presentation) shows how these rules can be confusing:

logic signed [3:0] a, b;
logic signed [4:0] sum;
logic ci;
sum = a + b + ci; // Unsigned addition due to unsigned ci.
sum = a + b + signed'(ci); // Signed addition, but ci == 1'b1 will be
                           // sign extended to 4'b1111 or -1.
sum = a + b + signed'({1'b0, ci}); // Safe sign extension.

Note that an operation is only considered signed if all of the operands are signed, and that literal values can be specified as signed, for example: 2'sb11 is -1 in 2 bits.

Avoid splitting arithmetic between statements or modules. This facilitates optimisation during synthesis, for example, to choose or generate an optimised adder implementation for the given set of operands and carry ins/outs. Instead of:

logic [3:0] a, b, c;
logic [4:0] int_sum, sum;
int_sum = a + b;
{unused_co, sum} = int_sum + {1'b0, c};

All of the arithmetic contributing to sum can be written in a single expression:

{unused_co, sum} = a + b + c;

Code structure

Place parameters and variables at the top of their containing scope. Doing this gives and overview of the state and complexity of a block, particularly a module. Declarations of combinatorial and sequential nets should be separated into different sections for clarity. Note also that variables declared in unnamed scopes are not accessible via the design hierarchy and will not appear in wave viewers. To separate a module into sections without making signals inaccessible, a named scope can be introduced. The following example of a ripple-carry adder with registered outputs gives an idea of this style of structuring:

module ripple_carry_adder
  #(parameter p_WIDTH = 8)
  ( input  logic               i_clk,
    input  logic               i_rst,
    input  logic [p_WIDTH-1:0] i_op1,
    input  logic [p_WIDTH-1:0] i_op2,
    output logic               o_co,
    output logic [p_WIDTH-1:0] o_sum );

  // Wires.
  logic [p_WIDTH-1:0] carry;
  // Registers.
  logic [p_WIDTH-1:0] sum_q;
  logic               co_q;
  // Variables.
  genvar i;

  assign carry[0] = 1'b0;
  assign {o_co, o_sum} = {co_q, sum_q};

  // Named generate block for per-bit continuous assignments.
  for (i = 0; i < p_WIDTH; i = i + 1) begin: bit
    assign {carry[i+1], sum[i]} = i_op1[i] + i_op2[i] + carry[i];

  always_ff @(posedge i_clk or posedge i_rst)
    if (i_rst) begin
      sum_q <= {p_WIDTH{1'b0}};
      co_q  <= 1'b0;
    end else begin
      sum_q <= sum;
      co_q  <= carry[p_WIDTH-1];


Use .* and .name() syntax to simplify port lists in module instantiations. This reduces the amount of boilerplate code and thus the scope for typing or copy-paste errors. .* also provides additional checks: it requires all nets be connected, it requires all nets to be the same size and it prevents implicit nets from being inferred. Named connections with .name() can be used to add specific exceptions. For example:

module foo (input logic i_clk,
            input logic i_rst,
            input logic in,
            output logic out);

u_module foo (.*,

Avoid logic in module instantiations. By instantiating a module with a set of named signals, it is easier to inspect the port hookups and the widths of the signals for correctness.

Signal naming

A strict approach to naming should be taken to make it easier to understand and navigate a design:

To make clear their relationship to the structure of a module. Prefixes and suffices can denote, for example, whether a signal is an input or output, the pipeline stage it corresponds to and whether it is driven by logic or directly from a flip-flop. The exact naming convention will be tailored to a project, but here are some examples:

i_p0_operand     // Input into pipeline stage 0.
p1_state         // A current state of a state machine.
p1_state_ns      // The next state.
state_clk        // A clock signal.
m1_sum_co_unused // An unused carryout bit from an addition.
m2_result_ff     // A registered result, driven by a flip-flop.
o_x4_state       // An output signal driven from stage x4.

To allow simple sorting and searching in wave viewer. By using common prefixes for related signals, sorting will place them together. Similarly, common substrings are useful to filter a subset of signals over, for example to select a set of registers or similar signals different in pipeline stages.

To be flattened sensibly by downstream tools. It is typical for synthesis to flatten the hierarchical structure of a Verilog design. Consequently symbols names are derived from their place in the module hierarchy. A suitable naming scheme really only requires consistency across a design. As an example, a flip-flop clock pin might be named u_toplevel_u_submodule_p0_signal_q_reg_17_/CK corresponding to the register u_toplevel/u_submodule/p0_signal_q[17].


Verilog is a large language with features supporting different purposes. It is used as a standard in hardware design but its specification does not define a synthesizable subset. Although there is a general consensus on which features can be used for synthesis, the fine details are determined by the particular EDA tooling flow used by a design team. Verilog is consequently used in a conservative way for specifying synthesizable designs. The rules and rationale given in this note outline some of the important aspects of a coding style for hardware design. There are many more details of Verilog’s features that are relevant; the references below are a good place to find out more.

References/further reading

  • IEEE Standard for SystemVerilog (IEEE 1800-2012 and 1800-2017).
  • Sutherland HDL papers on Verilog, in particular:
    • Stuart Sutherland and Don Mills, Standard gotchas subtleties in the Verilog and SystemVerilog standards that every engineer should know. SNUG 2006. (PDF)
    • Stuart Sutherland, A Proposal for a Standard Synthesizable SystemVerilog Subset. DVCon 2006. (PDF)
    • Stuart Sutherland and Don Mills, Synthesizing SystemVerilog: Busting the myth that SystemVerilog is only for verification, SNUG 2013. (PDF).
    • Stuart Sutherland and Don Mills, Can my synthesis compiler do that? What ASIC and FPGA synthesis compilers support in the SystemVerilog-2012 standard, DVCon 2014 (PDF).
  • SystemVerilog’s priority & unique - A Solution to Verilog’s “full_case” & “parallel_case” Evil Twins!, Clifford E. Cummings, SNUG 2005 (PDF).
  • Verilog HDL Coding, Semiconductor Reuse Standard, Freescale Semiconductor (PDF).
  • Complex Digital Systems, Synthesis, MIT OCW, 2005 (presentation slides, (PDF).