Hello Folks,

Problem statement first: How does one properly setup tensorflow for running on a DSVM using a remote Docker environment? Can this be done in aml_config/*.runconfig?

I receive the following message and I would like to be able to utilize the increased speeds of the extended FMA operations.

tensorflow/core/platform/cpu_feature_guard.cc:140] Your CPU supports instructions that this TensorFlow binary was not compiled to use: AVX2 FMA

Background: I utilize a local docker environment managed through Azure ML Workbench for initial testing and code validation so that I'm not running an expensive DSVM constantly. Once I assess that my code is to my liking, I then run it on a remote docker instance on an Azure DSVM.

I want a consistent conda environment across my compute environments, so this works out extremely well. However, I cannot figure out how to control the tensorflow build to optimize for the hardware at hand (i.e. my local docker on macOS vs. remote docker on Ubuntu DSVM)

Hi,

i am compiling firmware under Windows transfer the binaries and the sources to Linux to simulate/debug there. The problem is that the paths in the DWARF debug info of the .elf file are the absolute Windows paths as set by the compiler so they are useless under Linux. Is it possible to configure mappings of these paths to the Linux paths when simulating/debugging like with e.g. GDB (https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/Source-Path.html#index-set-substitute_002dpath)?

thx,

Peter

I am looking for LM117 Pspice model. Can someone send me the file. Thank you

When the Arduino Mega2560 is added to the first serial port, the dynamic memory is 2000 bytes, and when the second serial serial is added, the dynamic memory is 4000 bytes. Now I need to add the third Serial serial port. The dynamic memory is 6000 bytes. Due to the many variables in the program itself, the dynamic memory is not enough. Please help me how to save the dynamic memory?

Cadence_SPB_17.4-2019 + Matlab R2019a

请参考本文档中的步骤进行操作

1，打开BJT_AMP.opj

2，设置Matlab路径

3，打开BJT_AMP_SLPS.slx

4，打开后，设置PSpiceBlock，出现或CEFSimpleUI.exe停止工作

5，添加模块

6，相同

7，打开pspsim.slx

8，相同

9，打开C： Cadence Cadence_SPB_17.4-2019 tools bin

orCEFSimpleUI.exe和orCEFSimple.exe

10，相同

我想问一下如何解决，非常感谢！

Hello,

I'm reading the Design specification for IP6514E.

We will use the DAC mode.

It would seem to be very simple but I don't see any code sequence, i.e.

  1.Write 03(Basic Read) to this register

  2, Write start adress to this register

  3. Write "execute" to this register

  4. Read the data from this register

Thanks,

Stefan

Please give me some ideas. Thank you very much.

While doing the lvs it's showing an error in gnd connection, I am not being able to understand exactly what is the error and what do I need to do to remove this error?

We are having some issues with deploying i. We are looking for the silent command switch for deployment including the licence agreement acceptance.

Ideally we would like a regular MSI that we could install for all users and not in the user content.

Hello everyone. In recent days, I'm having a weird problem with sound output on my Windows 10 PC. In fact, I can't control the loudness of it. So is there any possibility of PCB of sound card being damaged?

I want to download Xtensa C/C++ Compiler (XCC) . I dont know where to download. Please help me.

Hi, all.

When I use vavlog to compile verilog rtl, it will recognize IO width mismatch problem as a fatal error.

How to turn the error into warning?

VCS can use -error=noIOPCWM to ingore the error.

Is vavlog has similar arguments?

use the DBO function DboLib_RepalceCache to do the job of "Replace cache" 

in order to easy the job ,  type the code below . the code is a wrapper of the function metioned above

set lStatus [DboState]
set lSession $::DboSession_s_pDboSession
DboSession -this $lSession
set lDesignsIter [$lSession NewDesignsIter $lStatus]
set lDesign [$lDesignsIter NextDesign $lStatus]
set lNullObj NULL

set oldLibName [DboTclHelper_sMakeCString "E:\PROJECT_WORKLIB.OLB"]
set newLibName [DboTclHelper_sMakeCString "E:\MCU_PARTS_LIB.OLB"]

#DboLib_ReplaceCache wrapper
proc ReplaceCacheByName {partName} {
    global oldLibName
    global newLibName
    global lDesign
    set lPartStr [DboTclHelper_sMakeCString $partName]
    #set lNewStr [DboTclHelper_sMakeCString $newName]
    $lDesign ReplaceCache $lPartStr $oldLibName $lPartStr $newLibName 0 1
}

then use the tcl command like below to do the real job :

ReplaceCacheByName "CL10B104KB8NNNC_C12"

Hi,

I need to design EPC8002 eGaN switch in cadence. Can someone provide me step by step guide on hoe to add EPC8002 into my cadence. I am working on BCD180.

Thank you 

Ihsan

Hi,

I'm looking to download Tensilica SDK for evaluation, but I can't get past the registration form:

This is the 15th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

It’s election season, and promises are raining down on voters like rose petals on naïve newlyweds. Earlier this week, the Congress party announced a minimum income guarantee for the poor. This Friday, the Modi government released a budget full of sops. As the days go by, the promises will get bolder, and you might feel important that so much attention is being given to you. Well, the joke is on you.

Every election, HL Mencken once said, is “an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” A bunch of competing mafias fight to rule over you for the next five years. You decide who wins, on the basis of who can bribe you better with your own money. This is an absurd situation, which I tried to express in a limerick I wrote for this page a couple of years ago:

POLITICS: A neta who loves currency notes/ Told me what his line of work denotes./ ‘It is kind of funny./ We steal people’s money/And use some of it to buy their votes.’

We’re the dupes here, and we pay far more to keep this circus going than this circus costs. It would be okay if the parties, once they came to power, provided good governance. But voters have given up on that, and now only want patronage and handouts. That leads to one of the biggest problems in Indian politics: We are stuck in an equilibrium where all good politics is bad economics, and vice versa.

For example, the minimum guarantee for the poor is good politics, because the optics are great. It’s basically Garibi Hatao: that slogan made Indira Gandhi a political juggernaut in the 1970s, at the same time that she unleashed a series of economic policies that kept millions of people in garibi for decades longer than they should have been.

This time, the Congress has released no details, and keeping it vague makes sense because I find it hard to see how it can make economic sense. Depending on how they define ‘poor’, how much income they offer and what the cost is, the plan will either be ineffective or unworkable.

The Modi government’s interim budget announced a handout for poor farmers that seemed rather pointless. Given our agricultural distress, offering a poor farmer 500 bucks a month seems almost like mockery.

Such condescending handouts solve nothing. The poor want jobs and opportunities. Those come with growth, which requires structural reforms. Structural reforms don’t sound sexy as election promises. Handouts do.

A classic example is farm loan waivers. We have reached a stage in our politics where every party has to promise them to assuage farmers, who are a strong vote bank everywhere. You can’t blame farmers for wanting them – they are a necessary anaesthetic. But no government has yet made a serious attempt at tackling the root causes of our agricultural crisis.

Why is it that Good Politics in India is always Bad Economics? Let me put forth some possible reasons. One, voters tend to think in zero-sum ways, as if the pie is fixed, and the only way to bring people out of poverty is to redistribute. The truth is that trade is a positive-sum game, and nations can only be lifted out of poverty when the whole pie grows. But this is unintuitive.

Two, Indian politics revolves around identity and patronage. The spoils of power are limited – that is indeed a zero-sum game – so you’re likely to vote for whoever can look after the interests of your in-group rather than care about the economy as a whole.

Three, voters tend to stay uninformed for good reasons, because of what Public Choice economists call Rational Ignorance. A single vote is unlikely to make a difference in an election, so why put in the effort to understand the nuances of economics and governance? Just ask, what is in it for me, and go with whatever seems to be the best answer.

Four, Politicians have a short-term horizon, geared towards winning the next election. A good policy that may take years to play out is unattractive. A policy that will win them votes in the short term is preferable.

Sadly, no Indian party has shown a willingness to aim for the long term. The Congress has produced new Gandhis, but not new ideas. And while the BJP did make some solid promises in 2014, they did not walk that talk, and have proved to be, as Arun Shourie once called them, UPA + Cow. Even the Congress is adopting the cow, in fact, so maybe the BJP will add Temple to that mix?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” This election season, my friends, the people of India are on the menu. You have been deveined and deboned, marinated with rhetoric, seasoned with narrative – now enter the oven and vote.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 17th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

One of my favourite English words comes from chess. If it is your turn to move, but any move you make makes your position worse, you are in ‘Zugzwang’. Narendra Modi was in zugzwang after the Pulwama attacks a few days ago—as any Indian prime minister in his place would have been.

An Indian PM, after an attack for which Pakistan is held responsible, has only unsavoury choices in front of him. He is pulled in two opposite directions. One, strategy dictates that he must not escalate. Two, politics dictates that he must.

Let’s unpack that. First, consider the strategic imperatives. Ever since both India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, a conventional war has become next to impossible because of the threat of a nuclear war. If India escalates beyond a point, Pakistan might bring their nuclear weapons into play. Even a limited nuclear war could cause millions of casualties and devastate our economy. Thus, no matter what the provocation, India needs to calibrate its response so that the Pakistan doesn’t take it all the way.

It’s impossible to predict what actions Pakistan might view as sufficient provocation, so India has tended to play it safe. Don’t capture territory, don’t attack military assets, don’t kill civilians. In other words, surgical strikes on alleged terrorist camps is the most we can do.

Given that Pakistan knows that it is irrational for India to react, and our leaders tend to be rational, they can ‘bleed us with a thousand cuts’, as their doctrine states, with impunity. Both in 2001, when our parliament was attacked and the BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee was PM, and in 2008, when Mumbai was attacked and the Congress’s Manmohan Singh was PM, our leaders considered all the options on the table—but were forced to do nothing.

But is doing nothing an option in an election year?

Leave strategy aside and turn to politics. India has been attacked. Forty soldiers have been killed, and the nation is traumatised and baying for blood. It is now politically impossible to not retaliate—especially for a PM who has criticized his predecessor for being weak, and portrayed himself as a 56-inch-chested man of action.

I have no doubt that Modi is a rational man, and knows the possible consequences of escalation. But he also knows the possible consequences of not escalating—he could dilute his brand and lose the elections. Thus, he is forced to act. And after he acts, his Pakistan counterpart will face the same domestic pressure to retaliate, and will have to attack back. And so on till my home in Versova is swallowed up by a nuclear crater, right?

Well, not exactly. There is a way to resolve this paradox. India and Pakistan can both escalate, not via military actions, but via optics.

Modi and Imran Khan, who you’d expect to feel like the loneliest men on earth right now, can find sweet company in each other. Their incentives are aligned. Neither man wants this to turn into a full-fledged war. Both men want to appear macho in front of their domestic constituencies. Both men are masters at building narratives, and have a pliant media that will help them.

Thus, India can carry out a surgical strike and claim it destroyed a camp, killed terrorists, and forced Pakistan to return a braveheart prisoner of war. Pakistan can say India merely destroyed two trees plus a rock, and claim the high moral ground by returning the prisoner after giving him good masala tea. A benign military equilibrium is maintained, and both men come out looking like strong leaders: a win-win game for the PMs that avoids a lose-lose game for their nations. They can give themselves a high-five in private when they meet next, and Imran can whisper to Modi, “You’re a good spinner, bro.”

There is one problem here, though: what if the optics don’t work?

If Modi feels that his public is too sceptical and he needs to do more, he might feel forced to resort to actual military escalation. The fog of politics might obscure the possible consequences. If the resultant Indian military action causes serious damage, Pakistan will have to respond in kind. In the chain of events that then begins, with body bags piling up, neither man may be able to back down. They could end up as prisoners of circumstance—and so could we.

***

Also check out:

Why Modi Must Learn to Play the Game of Chicken With Pakistan—Amit Varma
The Two Pakistans—Episode 79 of The Seen and the Unseen
India in the Nuclear Age—Episode 80 of The Seen and the Unseen

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 19th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

A friend of mine was very impressed by the interview Narendra Modi granted last week to Akshay Kumar. ‘Such a charming man, such great work ethic,’ he gushed. ‘He is the kind of uncle I would want my kids to have.’ And then, in the same breath, he asked, ‘How can such a good man be such a bad prime minister?”

I don’t want to be uncharitable and suggest that Modi’s image is entirely manufactured, so let’s take the interview at face value. Let’s also grant Modi his claims about the purity of his neeyat (intentions), and reframe the question this way: when it comes to public policy, why do good intentions often lead to bad outcomes? To attempt an answer, I’ll refer to a story a friend of mine, who knows Modi well, once told me about him. 

Modi was chilling with his friends at home more than a decade ago, and told them an incident from his childhood. His mother was ill once, and the young Narendra was tending to her. The heat was enervating, so the boy went to the switchboard to switch on the fan. But there was no electricity. My friend said that as he told this story, Modi’s eyes filled with tears. Even after all these years, he was moved by the memory.

My friend used this story to make the point that Modi’s vision of the world is experiential. If he experiences something, he understands it. When he became chief minister of Gujarat, he made it his stated mission to get reliable electricity to every part of Gujarat. No doubt this was shaped by the time he flicked a switch as a young boy and the fan did not budge. Similarly, he has given importance to things like roads and cleanliness, since he would have experienced the impact of those as a young man.

My term for him, inspired by Rajat Kapoor’s 2014 film, is ‘the ankhon dekhi prime minister’. At one level, this is a good thing. He sees a problem and works for the rest of his life to solve it. But what of things he cannot experience?

The economy is a complex beast, as is society itself, and beyond a certain level, you need to grasp abstract concepts to understand how the world works. You cannot experience them. For example, spontaneous order, or the idea that society and markets, like language, cannot be centrally directed or planned. Or the positive-sum nature of things, which is the engine of our prosperity: the idea that every transaction is a win-win game, and that for one person to win, another does not have to lose. Or, indeed, respect for individual rights and free speech.

One understands abstract concepts by reading about them, understanding them, applying them to the real world. Modi is not known to be a reader, and this is not his fault. Given his background, it is a near-miracle that he has made it this far. He wasn’t born into a home with a reading culture, and did not have either the resources or the time when he was young to devote to reading. The only way he could learn about the world, thus, was by experiencing it.

There are two lessons here, one for Modi himself and others in his position, and another for everyone.

The lesson in this for Modi is a lesson for anyone who rises to such an important position, even if he is the smartest person in the world. That lesson is to have humility about the bounds of your knowledge, and to surround yourself with experts who can advise you well. Be driven by values and not confidence in your own knowledge. Gather intellectual giants around you, and stand on their shoulders.

Modi did not do this in the case of demonetisation, which he carried out against the advice of every expert he consulted. We all know the damage it caused to the economy.

The other learning from this is for all of us. How do we make sense of the world? By connecting dots. An ankhon-dekhi approach will get us very few dots, and our view of the world will be blurred and incomplete. The best way to gather more dots is reading. The more we read, the better we understand the world, and the better the decisions we take. When we can experience a thousand lives through books, why restrict ourselves to one?

A good man with noble intentions can make bad decisions with horrible consequences. The only way to hedge against this is by staying humble and reading more. So when you finish reading this piece, think of an unread book that you’d like to read today – and read it!

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 20th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Amit Shah’s induction into the union cabinet is such an interesting moment. Even partisans who oppose the BJP, as I do, would admit that Shah is a political genius. Under his leadership, the BJP has become an electoral behemoth in the most complicated political landscape in the world. The big question that now arises is this: can Shah do for India what he did for the BJP?

This raises a perplexing question: in the last five years, as the BJP has flourished, India has languished. And yet, the leadership of both the party and the nation are more or less the same. Then why hasn’t the ability to manage the party translated to governing the country?

I would argue that there are two reasons for this. One, the skills required in those two tasks are different. Two, so are the incentives in play.

Let’s look at the skills first. Managing a party like the BJP is, in some ways, like managing a large multinational company. Shah is a master at top-down planning and micro-management. How he went about winning the 2014 elections, described in detail in Prashant Jha’s book How the BJP Wins, should be a Harvard Business School case study. The book describes how he fixed the BJP’s ground game in Uttar Pradesh, picking teams for 147,000 booths in Uttar Pradesh, monitoring them, and keeping them accountable.

Shah looked at the market segmentation in UP, and hit upon his now famous “60% formula”. He realised he could not deliver the votes of Muslims, Yadavs and Jatavs, who were 40% of the population. So he focussed on wooing the other 60%, including non-Yadav OBCs and non-Jatav Dalits. He carried out versions of these caste reconfigurations across states, and according to Jha, covered “over 5 lakh kilometres” between 2014 and 2017, consolidating market share in every state in this country. He nurtured “a pool of a thousand new OBC and Dalit leaders”, going well beyond the posturing of other parties.

That so many Dalits and OBCs voted for the BJP in 2019 is astonishing. Shah went past Mandal politics, managing to subsume previously antagonistic castes and sub-castes into a broad Hindutva identity. And as the BJP increased its depth, it expanded its breadth as well. What it has done in West Bengal, wiping out the Left and weakening Mamata Banerjee, is jaw-dropping. With hindsight, it may one day seem inevitable, but only a madman could have conceived it, and only a genius could have executed it.

Good man to be Home Minister then, eh? Not quite. A country is not like a large company or even a political party. It is much too complex to be managed from the top down, and a control freak is bound to flounder. The approach needed is very different.

Some tasks of governance, it is true, are tailor-made for efficient managers. Building infrastructure, taking care of roads and power, building toilets (even without an underlying drainage system) and PR campaigns can all be executed by good managers. But the deeper tasks of making an economy flourish require a different approach. They need a light touch, not a heavy hand.

The 20th century is full of cautionary tales that show that economies cannot be centrally planned from the top down. Examples of that ‘fatal conceit’, to use my hero Friedrich Hayek’s term, include the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and even the lady Modi most reminds me of, Indira Gandhi.

The task of the state, when it comes to the economy, is to administer a strong rule of law, and to make sure it is applied equally. No special favours to cronies or special interest groups. Just unleash the natural creativity of the people, and don’t try to micro-manage.

Sadly, the BJP’s impulse, like that of most governments of the past, is a statist one. India should have a small state that does a few things well. Instead, we have a large state that does many things badly, and acts as a parasite on its people.

As it happens, the few things that we should do well are all right up Shah’s managerial alley. For example, the rule of law is effectively absent in India today, especially for the poor. As Home Minister, Shah could fix this if he applied the same zeal to governing India as he did to growing the BJP. But will he?

And here we come to the question of incentives. What drives Amit Shah: maximising power, or serving the nation? What is good for the country will often coincide with what is good for the party – but not always. When they diverge, which path will Shah choose? So much rests on that.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 22nd installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Trade wars are on the rise, and it’s enough to get any nationalist all het up and excited. Earlier this week, Narendra Modi’s government announced that it would start imposing tariffs on 28 US products starting today. This is a response to similar treatment towards us from the US.

There is one thing I would invite you to consider: Trump and Modi are not engaged in a war with each other. Instead, they are waging war on their own people.

Let’s unpack that a bit. Part of the reason Trump came to power is that he provided simple and wrong answers for people’s problems. He responded to the growing jobs crisis in middle America with two explanations: one, foreigners are coming and taking your jobs; two, your jobs are being shipped overseas.

Both explanations are wrong but intuitive, and they worked for Trump. (He is stupid enough that he probably did not create these narratives for votes but actually believes them.) The first of those leads to the demonising of immigrants. The second leads to a demonising of trade. Trump has acted on his rhetoric after becoming president, and a modern US version of our old ‘Indira is India’ slogan might well be, “Trump is Tariff. Tariff is Trump.”

Contrary to the fulminations of the economically illiterate, all tariffs are bad, without exception. Let me illustrate this with an example. Say there is a fictional product called Brump. A local Brump costs Rs 100. Foreign manufacturers appear and offer better Brumps at a cheaper price, say Rs 90. Consumers shift to foreign Brumps.

Manufacturers of local Brumps get angry, and form an interest group. They lobby the government – or bribe it with campaign contributions – to impose a tariff on import of Brumps. The government puts a 20-rupee tariff. The foreign Brumps now cost Rs 110, and people start buying local Brumps again. This is a good thing, right? Local businesses have been helped, and local jobs have been saved.

But this is only the seen effect. The unseen effect of this tariff is that millions of Brump buyers would have saved Rs 10-per-Brump if there were no tariffs. This money would have gone out into the economy, been part of new demand, generated more jobs. Everyone would have been better off, and the overall standard of living would have been higher.

That brings to me to an essential truth about tariffs. Every tariff is a tax on your own people. And every intervention in markets amounts to a distribution of wealth from the people at large to specific interest groups. (In other words, from the poor to the rich.) The costs of this are dispersed and invisible – what is Rs 10 to any of us? – and the benefits are large and worth fighting for: Local manufacturers of Brumps can make crores extra. Much modern politics amounts to manufacturers of Brumps buying politicians to redistribute money from us to them.

There are second-order effects of protectionism as well. When the US imposes tariffs on other countries, those countries may respond by imposing tariffs back. Raw materials for many goods made locally are imported, and as these become expensive, so do those goods. That quintessential American product, the iPhone, uses parts from 43 countries. As local products rise in price because of expensive foreign parts, prices rise, demand goes down, jobs are lost, and everyone is worse off.

Trump keeps talking about how he wants to ‘win’ at trade, but trade is not a zero-sum game. The most misunderstood term in our times is probably ‘trade-deficit’. A country has a trade deficit when it imports more than what it exports, and Trump thinks of that as a bad thing. It is not. I run a trade deficit with my domestic help and my local grocery store. I buy more from them than they do from me. That is fine, because we all benefit. It is a win-win game.

Similarly, trade between countries is really trade between the people of both countries – and people trade with each other because they are both better off. To interfere in that process is to reduce the value created in their lives. It is immoral. To modify a slogan often identified with libertarians like me, ‘Tariffs are Theft.’

These trade wars, thus, carry a touch of the absurd. Any leader who imposes tariffs is imposing a tax on his own people. Just see the chain of events: Trump taxes the American people. In retaliation, Modi taxes the Indian people. Trump raises taxes. Modi raises taxes. Nationalists in both countries cheer. Interests groups in both countries laugh their way to the bank.

What kind of idiocy is this? How long will this lose-lose game continue?

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 23rd installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

I had a strange dream last night. I dreamt that the government had passed a law that made using laptops illegal. I would have to write this column by hand. I would also have to leave my home in Mumbai to deliver it in person to my editor in Delhi. I woke up trembling and angry – and realised how Indian farmers feel every single day of their lives.

My column today is a tale of two satyagrahas. Both involve farmers, technology and the freedom of choice. One of them began this month – but first, let us go back to the turn of the millennium.

As the 1990s came to an end, cotton farmers across India were in distress. Pests known as bollworms were ravaging crops across the country. Farmers had to use increasing amounts of pesticide to keep them at bay. The costs of the pesticide and the amount of labour involved made it unviable – and often, the crops would fail anyway.

Then, technology came to the rescue. The farmers heard of Bt Cotton, a genetically modified type of cotton that kept these pests away, and was being used around the world. But they were illegal in India, even though no bad effects had ever been recorded. Well, who cares about ‘illegal’ when it is a matter of life and death?

Farmers in Gujarat got hold of Bt Cotton seeds from the black market and planted them. You’ll never guess what happened next. As 2002 began, all cotton crops in Gujarat failed – except the 10,000 hectares that had Bt Cotton. The government did not care about the failed crops. They cared about the ‘illegal’ ones. They ordered all the Bt Cotton crops to be destroyed.

It was time for a satyagraha – and not just in Gujarat. The late Sharad Joshi, leader of the Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra, took around 10,000 farmers to Gujarat to stand with their fellows there. They sat in the fields of Bt Cotton and basically said, ‘Over our dead bodies.’ ¬Joshi’s point was simple: all other citizens of India have access to the latest technology from all over. They are all empowered with choice. Why should farmers be held back?

The satyagraha was successful. The ban on Bt Cotton was lifted.

There are three things I would like to point out here. One, the lifting of the ban transformed cotton farming in India. Over 90% of Indian farmers now use Bt Cotton. India has become the world’s largest producer of cotton, moving ahead of China. According to agriculture expert Ashok Gulati, India has gained US$ 67 billion in the years since from higher exports and import savings because of Bt Cotton. Most importantly, cotton farmers’ incomes have doubled.

Two, GMO crops have become standard across the world. Around 190 million hectares of GMO crops have been planted worldwide, and GMO foods are accepted in 67 countries. The humanitarian benefits have been massive: Golden Rice, a variety of rice packed with minerals and vitamins, has prevented blindness in countless new-born kids since it was introduced in the Philippines.

Three, despite the fear-mongering of some NGOs, whose existence depends on alarmism, the science behind GMO is settled. No harmful side effects have been noted in all these years, and millions of lives impacted positively. A couple of years ago, over 100 Nobel Laureates signed a petition asserting that GMO foods were safe, and blasting anti-science NGOs that stood in the way of progress. There is scientific consensus on this.

The science may be settled, but the politics is not. The government still bans some types of GMO seeds, such as Bt Brinjal, which was developed by an Indian company called Mahyco, and used successfully in Bangladesh. More crucially, a variety called HT Bt Cotton, which fights weeds, is also banned. Weeding takes up to 15% of a farmer’s time, and often makes farming unviable. Farmers across the world use this variant – 60% of global cotton crops are HT Bt. Indian farmers are so desperate for it that they choose to break the law and buy expensive seeds from the black market – but the government is cracking down. A farmer in Haryana had his crop destroyed by the government in May.

On June 10 this year, a farmer named Lalit Bahale in the Akola District of Maharashtra kicked off a satyagraha by planting banned seeds of HT Bt Cotton and Bt Brinjal. He was soon joined by thousands of farmers. Far from our urban eyes, a heroic fight has begun. Our farmers, already victimised and oppressed by a predatory government in countless ways, are fighting for their right to take charge of their lives.

As this brave struggle unfolds, I am left with a troubling question: All those satyagrahas of the past by our great freedom fighters, what were they for, if all they got us was independence and not freedom?

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 24th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Back in the last decade, I was a cricket journalist for a few years. Then, around 12 years ago, I quit. I was jaded as hell. Every game seemed like déjà vu, nothing new, just another round on the treadmill. Although I would remember her fondly, I thought me and cricket were done.

And then I fell in love again. Cricket has changed in the last few years in glorious ways. There have been new ways of thinking about the game. There have been new ways of playing the game. Every season, new kinds of drama form, new nuances spring up into sight. This is true even of what had once seemed the dullest form of the game, one-day cricket. We are entering into a brave new world, and the team leading us there is England. No matter what happens in the World Cup final today – a single game involves a huge amount of luck – this England side are extraordinary. They are the bridge between eras, leading us into a Golden Age of Cricket.

I know that sounds hyperbolic, so let me stun you further by saying that I give the IPL credit for this. And now, having woken up you up with such a jolt on this lovely Sunday morning, let me explain.

Twenty20 cricket changed the game in two fundamental ways. Both ended up changing one-day cricket. The first was strategy.

When the first T20 games took place, teams applied an ODI template to innings-building: pinch-hit, build, slog. But this was not an optimal approach. In ODIs, teams have 11 players over 50 overs. In T20s, they have 11 players over 20 overs. The equation between resources and constraints is different. This means that the cost of a wicket goes down, and the cost of a dot ball goes up. Critically, it means that the value of aggression rises. A team need not follow the ODI template. In some instances, attacking for all 20 overs – or as I call it, ‘frontloading’ – may be optimal.

West Indies won the T20 World Cup in 2016 by doing just this, and England played similarly. And some sides began to realise was that they had been underestimating the value of aggression in one-day cricket as well.

The second fundamental way in which T20 cricket changed cricket was in terms of skills. The IPL and other leagues brought big money into the game. This changed incentives for budding cricketers. Relatively few people break into Test or ODI cricket, and play for their countries. A much wider pool can aspire to play T20 cricket – which also provides much more money. So it makes sense to spend the hundreds of hours you are in the nets honing T20 skills rather than Test match skills. Go to any nets practice, and you will find many more kids practising innovative aggressive strokes than playing the forward defensive.

As a result, batsmen today have a wider array of attacking strokes than earlier generations. Because every run counts more in T20 cricket, the standard of fielding has also shot up. And bowlers have also reacted to this by expanding their arsenal of tricks. Everyone has had to lift their game.

In one-day cricket, thus, two things have happened. One, there is better strategic understanding about the value of aggression. Two, batsmen are better equipped to act on the aggressive imperative. The game has continued to evolve.

Bowlers have reacted to this with greater aggression on their part, and this ongoing dialogue has been fascinating. The cricket writer Gideon Haigh once told me on my podcast that the 2015 World Cup featured a battle between T20 batting and Test match bowling.

This England team is the high watermark so far. Their aggression does not come from slogging. They bat with a combination of intent and skills that allows them to coast at 6-an-over, without needing to take too many risks. In normal conditions, thus, they can coast to 300 – any hitting they do beyond that is the bonus that takes them to 350 or 400. It’s a whole new level, illustrated by the fact that at one point a few days ago, they had seven consecutive scores of 300 to their name. Look at their scores over the last few years, in fact, and it is clear that this is the greatest batting side in the history of one-day cricket – by a margin.

There have been stumbles in this World Cup, but in the bigger picture, those are outliers. If England have a bad day in the final and New Zealand play their A-game, England might even lose today. But if Captain Morgan’s men play their A-game, they will coast to victory. New Zealand does not have those gears. No other team in the world does – for now.

But one day, they will all have to learn to play like this.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

Read on to know about the Operating Point Parameters Summary window that gives you a one-stop view of the categorized and tabulated details on all operating point parameters in your design. This window improves your review cycle with its many benefits.(read more)

Designers have long recognized the need to analyze the reliability of ICs. Two commonly used approaches for performing reliability analysis include calculating the change in device degradation and relying on safe operating checks in circuit simulators. 

With the advent of the ever-increasing use of ICs in mission-critical applications, the need for reliable reliability analysis has become of paramount importance. Over the years, you have been using reliability analysis in Virtuoso ADE Assembler and Virtuoso ADE Explorer to measure and review aging effects, such as device characteristic degradations, model parameter changes, self-heating effects, and so on.

Reliability analysis can be performed using two modes: Spectre native and RelXpert. The reliability analysis analyzes the effect of time on circuit performance drift and predicts the reliability of designs in terms of performance. In ADE Assembler, you can run the reliability simulation for fresh test (when time is zero), stress test (to generate degradation data), and aged test (at specific intervals, such as one year, three years, or 10 years). In the stress test, extreme environmental conditions are used to stress devices before aging analysis.

The following figure shows the reliability simulation flow.

The Reliability Options form has the following four tabs: 

• Basic: Enables you to specify analysis type, aging options, start and stop time of reliability simulation, and options related to device masking, degradation ratio, and lifetime calculation. 

• Modeling: Enables you to choose the modeling type you want to use during reliability simulation. 

• Degradation: Enables you to specify the options to print device and subcircuit degradation information into a .bt0 file. 

• Output: Enables you to specify the degradation reports to be generated and methods to filter degradation results in the reports.

While the Basic and the Output tabs are used by design engineers, the Modeling and the Degradation tabs are primarily used by model developers.

Reviewing degradation reports in text or XML formats can be a tiresome exercise because degradation data can be large and can contain a large number of instances due to advanced technology nodes and post-layout simulations. For you to work effectively and interactively with these reports, the new reliability report is based on the SQLite database, which adds the benefit of improved performance and capabilities of sorting and filtering reliability data using SQLite operators.

As they say, watching this in action might help you more than reading about it, so please take a look at our Training Bytes video channel, which offers many helpful videos on how to run Reliability Analysis in Virtuoso Studio.

All the related videos are linked together in a channel so that you can easily access and watch as many as you like.

Reliability Analysis in Virtuoso Studio

Want to Learn More?

For lab instructions and a downloadable design, enroll for the online training courses of your interest on

Reliability Analysis in Virtuoso Studio vIC23.1 (Online)

 Training is also available as "Blended" or "live" class.

Digital Badge Available

You can become Cadence Certified once you complete the course (s) and share your knowledge and certifications on social media channels. Go straight to the course exam at the Learning and Support Portal.

Note: Some of the above links are accessible only to Cadence customers who have a valid login ID for the Cadence Learning and Support Portal.

Do You Have Access to the Cadence Support Portal?

If not, follow the steps below to create your account.

• On the Cadence Support portal, select Register Now and provide the requested information on the Registration page.
• You will need an email address and host ID in order to sign up.
• If you need help with registration, contact support@cadence.com.

To stay up-to-date with the latest news and information about Cadence training and webinars, subscribe to the Cadence Training emails.

If you have questions about courses, schedules, online, public, or live onsite training, reach out to us at Cadence Training.

Related Resources

About Knowledge Booster Training Bytes

Knowledge Booster Training Bytes is an online journal that relays information about Cadence Training videos, online courses, and upcoming webinars that are available in the Learning section of the Cadence Learning and Support portal. This blog category brings you direct links to these videos, courses, and other related material on a regular basis.

Niyati Singh

On behalf of the Cadence Training team

Virtuoso Studio IC23.1 ISR7 production release is now available for download.(read more)

During a mixed-signal simulation, the analog engine usually dominates the simulation time and resources. If you need to run only the analog engine in several windows, or if you would like to to run multiple tests of the same circuit with different stimuli or test pattern, then you need to run the simulation multiple times. View this blog to know more about the the two advanced technologies that Spectre AMS Designer provides to help you improve the efficiency of your mixed-signal designs and to increase the simulation speed.(read more)

This blog describes an efficient way to name the histories saved by the simulation runs in Virtuoso ADE Assembler.(read more)

Read this blog to know how you can easily create and insert connect modules using Spectre AMS Designer with the Verilog-AMS standard language defined by Accellera. (read more)

At a bustling Cadence event, we met Adrian, an intern at a startup who immerses himself in Cadence tools for his research and work.

Adrian was enthusiastic about the innovative technologies at his disposal but faced a significant challenge: internet access was limited to a single machine for new joiners, forcing interns to wait in line for their turn to use online resources.

Adrian's excitement soared when he discovered a game-changing solution: Doc Assistant. The cloud-based help viewer, Doc Assistant, ships with all Cadence tools, enabling Adrian to access help resources offline from any machine equipped with the software. This meant Adrian could continue his research and work seamlessly, irrespective of internet availability!

Meeting Cadence users and customers at such events has given us the opportunity to showcase how they can benefit from the diverse features that Doc Assistant offers.

With that note, welcome back to our Doc Assistant A-Z blog series! In Part 1, we explored key features and benefits that our innovative viewer brings to the table. Today, in Part 2, we'll dive deeper into the advanced functionalities and customization options that make Doc Assistant indispensable for its users.

Whether you're looking to streamline your workflow or enhance your user experience, this blog will provide the insights you need to fully leverage the capabilities of our documentation viewer. Let’s get started!

What Makes Doc Assistant Stand Out?

Here are a few (more) cool features of Doc Assistant!

That's not all. We have more coming your way. Until next time, take care and stay tuned for our next edition!

Want to Know More?

For any questions or general feedback, write to docassistant.support@cadence.com.

Subscribe to receive email notifications about our latest Custom IC Design blog posts.

Happy reading!

-Priya Sriram, on behalf of the Doc Assistant Team

Have you ever wanted to write a DRC rule deck to check for space or width constraints on polygons? Or have you wondered how the multiple lines of an LVS rule deck extract and conduct a comparison between the schematic and layout? Maybe you've been curious about the role of rule deck writers in creating high-quality designs ready for tape-out.

If any of these questions interest you, there is good news: the latest version (v23.1) of the Physical Verification Rules Writer (PVLRW) course is designed to teach you rule deck writing. This free 16-hour online course includes audio and labs designed to make your learning experience comfortable and flexible. Whether you are new to the concept or an experienced CAD/PDK engineer, the course is structured to enhance your rule deck writing skills.

The PVLRW course covers six core modules: Layer Processing, DRC Rules, Layout Extraction, ERC and LVS Rules, Schematic Netlisting, and Coloring Rules. There are also three optional appendix sections. Each module explains relevant rules with syntax, concepts, graphics, examples, and case studies.

This course is based on tool versions PEGASUS231 and Virtuoso Studio IC231.

Pegasus Input and Output

Pegasus is a cloud-ready physical verification signoff solution that enables engineers to support faster delivery of advanced-node integrated circuits (ICs) to market.

Pegasus requires input data in the form of layout geometry, schematic netlists, and rules that direct the tool operation. The rules fall into two categories: those that describe the fabrication process and those that control the job-specific operation.

Pegasus provides log and report files, netlists, databases, and error databases as output.

Overview of Pegasus Rule File

The rule decks written in Physical Verification Language (PVL) work for the Cadence PV signoff tools Pegasus and PVS (Physical Verification System).   

The PVL rules are placed in a file that gets selected in a run from the GUI or the command line, as the user directs. PVL rules may be on separate lines within the file and can also be contained in named rule blocks.

Each line of code starts with a PVL rule that uses prefix type notation. It consists of a keyword followed by options, input layer or variable names, and output layer or variable names.

A rule block has the format of the keyword rule, followed by a rule name you wish to give it, followed by an opening curly brace. You enter the rules you wish to perform, followed by a closing curly brace on the last separate line.

  Sample Rule deck with individual lines of code and rule blocks.

DRC Rules

The first step in a typical Pegasus flow is a Design Rule Check (DRC), which verifies that layout geometries conform to the minimum width, spacing, and other fabrication process rules required by an IC foundry. Each foundry specifies its own process-dependent rules that must be met by the layout design.

There are three types of DRC rules: layer definition rules, layer derivation rules, and DRC design check rules. Layer definition rules identify the layers contained in the input layout database, and layer derivation rules derive additional layers from the original input layers, allowing the tool to test the design against specific foundry requirements using the design check rules.

A sample DRC Rule deck

A layout view displaying the DRC violations

LVS Rules

The Pegasus Layout Versus Schematic (LVS) tool compares the layout netlist with the schematic netlist to check for discrepancies.

There are two essential LVS rule sets: LVS extraction rules and comparison rules. LVS extraction rules help extract drawn devices and connectivity information from the input layout geometry data and outputs into a layout netlist. The LVS extraction rule set also includes the layer definition, derivation, extraction, connectivity, and net listing rules.

LVS comparison rules are associated with comparing the extracted layout netlist to a schematic netlist.

A sample LVS Rule deck. 

TCL, Macros, and Conditional commands

Tcl is supported and used in various Pegasus functionalities, such as Pegasus rule files and Pegasus configurator. Macros are functional templates that are defined once and can be used multiple times in a rule file. Conditional Commands are used to process or skip specific commands in the rule file.

Do You Have Access to the Cadence Support Portal?

If not, follow the steps below to create your account.

• On the Cadence Support portal, select Register Now and provide the requested information on the Registration page.
• You will need an email address and host ID to sign up.
• If you need help with registration, contact support@cadence.com.

To stay up to date with the latest news and information about Cadence training and webinars, subscribe to the Cadence Training emails.

If you have questions about courses, schedules, online, public, or live onsite training, reach out to us at Cadence Training.

For any questions, general feedback, or future blog topic suggestions, please leave a comment.

Related Resources

About Knowledge Booster Training Bytes

Knowledge Booster Training Bytes is an online journal that relays information about Cadence Training videos, online courses, and upcoming webinars in the Learning section of the Cadence Learning and Support portal. This blog category brings you direct links to these videos, courses, and other related material on a regular basis. Subscribe to receive email notifications about our latest Custom IC Design blog posts.

Virtuoso Studio IC23.1 ISR8 production release is now available for download.(read more)

Read this blog to know more about the innovation behind Universal Connect Modules (UCM).(read more)

This blog explores how Virtuoso Studio Net Tracer can help you perform a design review.

We’ll use the net connectivity option, which allows the user to get a clean highlighted net. You can use the Net Tracer tool to highlight the nets. You can find the Net Tracer command under the connectivity pulldown menu in the layout window.

Trace manager and the ability to display different islands on the same net with other colors, you can identify and connect the unconnected islands as you wish.

The Net Tracer utility traces the nets in the physical view (layout). The trace is a highlighted net, which is a non-selectable object. The Net Tracer utility is available from Virtuoso Layout Suite XL onwards. You can use this utility based on your specific needs and preferences.

For a better understanding of the Net Tracer feature, let’s see one scenario between the circuit designer and layout engineer for a layout design review.

Circuit designer: Can we go through the routed input nets “inm” and “inp”?

Layout engineer: From the below layout view where they are highlighted using the XL connectivity, today I will use Net Tracer utility for the design review.

Circuit designer: I have never heard of this feature. Let's see how it works.

Layout engineer: Sure, now we turn on the Net Tracer toolbar using the below option.

You see the Net Tracer options form here:

As you can see on my screen, I have opened the layout view and engaged the Net Tracer utility.

Net Tracer allows shapes to be traced on a net in two tracing modes, namely, physical and logical, where shapes on the same net are physically or logically connected.

Physical tracing gathers all the shapes physically connected on the same net.

Logical tracing gathers all the shapes assigned to the same net. It highlights the net as in the source design (schematic). It will highlight shapes on the same net, even if they are isolated shapes that are not physically connected.

For this scenario, let us use physical tracing for input nets “inm” and “inp."

Highlighted nets are shown below:

Net “inm”                    Net “inp”                   Nets “inm” and “inp” 

Net Tracer has features like physical and logical tracing, preview, step-by-step mode, ease of tracing a net on a shape out of multiple underlying shapes, and so on.

Let us explore logical tracing for output nets “outm” and “outp”:

Here, you can see how to enable true color and halo before enabling logical tracing to identify the metal route. After enabling the true color halo, enable the logical trace.

Here, I am opening the trace manager to search “outm” and “outp” and click trace. That will trace the particular nets as shown.

Net Tracer has a preview feature, which is helpful in terms of the number of previewed objects. This preview capability hints at how the trace would appear when you create it. This useful feature in Virtuoso Studio highlights both completed and incomplete nets, helping the user better understand the status of the highlighted nets.

Circuit designer: Thanks for the design review. You have done good work. Net Tracer clearly shows both types of tracing, and it was even easy for the circuit designer to understand.

Layout engineer: Let me share the link to the Net Tracer RAK, where other layout engineers can explore many more amazing features of the Net Tracer.

Do You Have Access to the Cadence Support Portal?

If not, follow the steps below to create your account.

• On the Cadence Support portal, select Register Now and provide the requested information on the Registration page.
• You will need an email address and host ID to sign up.
• If you need help with registration, contact support@cadence.com.

To stay up to date with the latest news and information about Cadence training and webinars, subscribe to the Cadence Training emails.

If you have questions about courses, schedules, online, public, or live onsite training, reach out to us at Cadence Training.

For any questions, general feedback, or future blog topic suggestions, please leave a comment.

Become Cadence Certified

Cadence Training Services now offers digital badges for this training course. These badges indicate proficiency in a certain technology or skill and give you a way to validate your expertise to managers and potential employers. You can highlight your expertise by adding these digital badges to your email signature or any social media platform, such as Facebook or LinkedIn. To become Cadence Certified, you can find additional information here.

Related Resources

About Knowledge Booster Training Bytes

Knowledge Booster Training Bytes is an online journal that relays information about Cadence Training videos, online courses, and upcoming webinars that are available in the Learning section of the Cadence Learning and Support portal. This blog category brings you direct links to these videos, courses, and other related material on a regular basis.

Sandhya.

On behalf of the Cadence Training team

Virtuoso Studio IC23.1 ISR9 production release is now available for download.(read more)

Welcome back to the Doc Assistant A-Z blog series!

Since the launch of Doc Assistant, we've been gathering feedback and input from our customers regarding their experiences with our latest documentation viewer. My interaction with Ralf was particularly useful and interesting.

Ralf is a design engineer who works on complex schematics and intricate layouts. For each release, he is challenged with the task of verifying the tool and feature changes across multiple releases. He shared with me that he has been using Doc Assistant’s capabilities to help him achieve this.

Ralf explained that he utilizes Doc Assistant to open and compare documents from different releases side-by-side, seamlessly tracking updates across multiple releases and verifying those updates in his Cadence tools. Additionally, in Doc Assistant’s online mode, he compares documents across previous tool versions, ensuring a thorough review of any changes. Finally, he was happy to share with me that Doc Assistant features have helped him significantly reduce the time he spends on identifying such changes.

You, of course, can also achieve such productivity gains using several Doc Assistant features designed to help simplify such tasks!

In previous editions of this blog series, we looked at some key features and benefits of Doc Assistant. If you've missed these editions, I would highly recommend that you read them:

• Doc Assistant A-Z: Making the Most of the Cadence Cloud-Based Help Viewer: Part 1
• Doc Assistant A-Z: Making the Most of the Cadence Cloud-Based Help Viewer: Part 2
  

In this third installment, we're diving into some more of Doc Assistant's key capabilities.

To learn more about how to use the above features, check out the Doc Assistant User Guide.

These are just a few of the productivity gain features in Doc Assistant. We’ll cover more in the next blog in the series.

Want to Know More?

If you have any feedback on Doc Assistant or would like to request more information or a demo, please contact docassistant.support@cadence.com.

Subscribe to receive email notifications about our latest Custom IC Design blog posts.

Happy reading!

- Priya Sriram, on behalf of the Doc Assistant Team

Virtuoso Studio IC23.1 ISR10 production release is now available for download.(read more)

Hi 

I am looking into chamfering the edge of PCB for Board edge connectors. I have performed fillet command earlier but new to chamfering.

Below is the description :

As seen above, the PCB edge are chamfered in thickness as well as at the corners.

Using OrCAD PCB hotfix S023.

Hello Fellow PCB Designers,

We have a 10 layer PCB design that originated in Pads and was converted over to Allegro 17.4, this is an old design but is manufacturable and works perfectly fine.  When I try to generate a Gerber for the Top or Bottom layers

the Gerber comes out fine.  But Most of the middle layers are Etch's and via's for power and grounds, but the Gerber's come mostly blank, there might be some details, but in the Gerber view everything is displayed correctly.

The design does have many close spacings, I have not changed anything in the constrains manager yet, turned off a lot of the DRC's, but thinking there might be something wrong with the constrains.

  I find that the CSet is set to 2_18, not sure yet what this means, also there are many of these definitions, PCS 3,4,5,ect, are the same as CSet 2_18 any suggestions would be great, we are currently looking into this, have seen

that even small change in constraint manager can cause long processing and even Allegro crashing, this is a large project.

Thanks Much, Thanks, Mike Pollock.

Hi,

So I was trying to update the title block of a schematic that I have. The title block that was on there was out of date . I clicked on place --> title block and was able to find the title block that I need. I also have a .OLB file that contains that title block. Then I created a Netlist with the old BRD file as the input file (To keep it as is but modify changes) but when I do that I still do not see / cannot place the title block that I need. Under Place --> format symbols in Allegro , I do see a title block that is coming from the database (But it's the old one). I don't know what to do at this point and would appreciate any tips. I did make sure that the path to where the library is , is defined in the user preferences. 
I also tried copying the title block under the library folder in capture before creating my Netlist and that did not work either.

Thank you all.

1， Some components in the installation package cannot choose to install; even if they do not choose them, they will still be installed; just less shortcut icons, the documents are still released to the installation directory.

2， "Catia Application Frame" repeat the problem?
       “x:CadenceSPB_17.4 oolsin“
       ”x:CadenceSPB_17.4 oolsspatial“
       "Catia Application Frame" shouldn't you use the latest version?

3，Follow-up update patch cleaning the useless files and extra empty folder action !!!

The SPB17.4 installation package is currently the worst installation package I have seen for large-scale software packaging.

How do we purge/remove the duplicated vias in the same location of the PCB editor? These vias are not the one stacked and they are just blind vias running in internal layers 12-14. I find there is an additional copy of the blind via at the same location. Not sure what caused this issue.

I'd like to be able to edit a footprint for a part in my design without needing to find the footprint filepath and directly open that file in PCB Editor. I see that I can view footprints from Capture, and that doing so shows me the footprint path, but I can't find any way to launch the editor. Is there any way to go directly from a part in a Capture schematic or a placed part in a PCB Editor board design to editing that part's footprint?

Hi,

I have a monitor plugged to my laptop using a HDMI to USB adapter. When using this adapter, Allegro runs very slowly. It seems that it is not using my video card.

Is this a known issue with a workaround I can try?

Thanks,

Michael

Hello..

I'm updating part in part editor in orcad capture, and I wonder how to align pin numbers using menu or tcl/tk command.

Please, let me know. Thank you.

Hi All

I am looking for the functions which are different about OrCAD Professional and Allegro tier.

is there any resource?

regard

As the title suggests I am unable to perform design sync between OrCAD Capture and Allegro. When I add a layout and try to sync to it I am given ERROR(ORCAP-2426): Cannot run Design Sync because of errors. See session log for error details.

Session Log

[ORPCBFLOW] : Invoking ECO dialog.
INFO(ORNET-1176): Netlisting the design
INFO(ORNET-1178): Design Name:
C:USERSDDOYLEDOCUMENTSCADENCEBOARDSREMOTE POWER DEVICECAPTUREREMOTE_POWER_DEVICE.DSN
Netlist Directory:
c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegro
Configuration File:
C:CadenceSPB_17.4 ools/capture/allegro.cfg
pstswp.exe - pst - d "C:USERSDDOYLEDOCUMENTSCADENCEBOARDSREMOTE POWER DEVICECAPTUREREMOTE_POWER_DEVICE.DSN"- n "c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegro" - c "C:CadenceSPB_17.4 ools/capture/allegro.cfg" - v 3 - l 31 - s "" - j "PCB Footprint" - hpath "HPathForCollision"
Spawning... pstswp.exe - pst - d "C:USERSDDOYLEDOCUMENTSCADENCEBOARDSREMOTE POWER DEVICECAPTUREREMOTE_POWER_DEVICE.DSN"- n "c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegro" - c "C:CadenceSPB_17.4 ools/capture/allegro.cfg" - v 3 - l 31 - s "" - j "PCB Footprint" - hpath "HPathForCollision"
{ Using PSTWRITER 17.4.0 d001Dec-14-2021 at 09:00:49 }

INFO(ORCAP-36080): Scanning netlist files ...

Loading... c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegropstchip.dat

Loading... c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegropstchip.dat

Loading... c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegropstxprt.dat

Loading... c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegropstxnet.dat
packaging the design view...
Exiting... pstswp.exe - pst - d "C:USERSDDOYLEDOCUMENTSCADENCEBOARDSREMOTE POWER DEVICECAPTUREREMOTE_POWER_DEVICE.DSN"- n "c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegro" - c "C:CadenceSPB_17.4 ools/capture/allegro.cfg" - v 3 - l 31 - s "" - j "PCB Footprint" - hpath "HPathForCollision"
INFO(ORNET-1179): *** Done ***

This issue started to occur after I changed parts that exist on previously created PCBs. I changed the following leading up to this:

1. Added height in Allegro to many of my components using the Setup->Area->Package Height tool.

2. Changed the reference designator category in OrCAD Capture to TP for several components on board.

Any advice here would be most welcome. Thanks!

I'm not able to export a CIS Standard BOM to a Microsoft 365 Excel (business subscription, version 2111).
Selecting the "Export BOM report to Excel" option opens a new Excel window, but OrCAD (17.4-2019 S023) won't fill it with any data...

I tried it on a different PC with Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2019 Excel (strangely the version number is the same: 2111) and with OrCAD 17.4-2019 S016 and it worked flawlessly.

Does anybody experiencing the same issue?
Does the Excel variant, the OrCAD version or the PC itself causing this?
Thanks for any help!

The default position of the pin number is incorrect.

Allegro part of DPI does not support scaling above 150%