Sample clues

14 across: FDR’s baby (3,4)

1 down: A glitch in the Matrix? (4,2)

4 down: Slanted character (6)

5 down: New Year’s venue in New York (5,6)

16 down: Atmosphere of melancholy (5)

Extrowords © 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

Sample clues

6 across: Alejandro González Iñárritu’s breakthrough film (6,6)

19 across: Soft leather shoe (8)

7 down: Randroids, for example (12)

12 down: First American World Chess Champion (7)

17 down: Circle of influence (5)

Extrowords © 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

Sample clues

5 across: Robbie Robertson song about Richard Manuel (6,5)

2 down: F5 on a keyboard (7)

10 across: Lionel Richie hit (5)

3 down: ALTAIR, for example (5)

16 down: The problem with Florida 2000 (5)

Extrowords © 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

Sample clues

9 across: Van Morrison classic from Moondance (7)

6 down: Order beginning with ‘A’ (12)

6 across: Fatal weakness (8,4)

19 across: Rolling Stones classic (12)

4 down: Massacre tool (8)

Extrowords © 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

In the book “The World of _____” by Bennett Alan Weinberg and Bonnie K Bealer, there is a photograph of a label from a jar of pharmaceutical-grade crystals. It reads:

“WARNING: MAY BE HARMFUL IF INHALED OR SWALLOWED. HAS CAUSED MUTAGENIC AND REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS IN LABORATORY ANIMALS. INHALATION CAUSES RAPID HEART RATE, EXCITEMENT, DIZZINESS, PAIN, COLLAPSE, HYPOTENSION, FEVER, SHORTNESS OF BREATH. MAY CAUSE HEADACHE, INSOMNIA, VOMITING, STOMACH PAIN, COLLAPSE AND CONVULSIONS.”

Fill in the blank.

Workoutable © 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

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.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

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

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 18th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

The man who gave us our national anthem, Rabindranath Tagore, once wrote that nationalism was “a great menace.” He went on to say, “It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles.”

Not just India’s, but the world’s: In his book The Open Society and its Enemies, published in 1945 as Adolf Hitler was defeated, Karl Popper ripped into nationalism, with all its “appeals to our tribal instincts, to passion and to prejudice, and to our nostalgic desire to be relieved from the strain of individual responsibility which it attempts to replace by a collective or group responsibility.”

Nationalism is resurgent today, stomping across the globe hand-in-hand with populism. In India, too, it is tearing us apart. But must nationalism always be a bad thing? A provocative new book by the Israeli thinker Yael Tamir argues otherwise.

In her book Why Nationalism, Tamir makes the following arguments. One, nation-states are here to stay. Two, the state needs the nation to be viable. Three, people need nationalism for the sense of community and belonging it gives them. Four, therefore, we need to build a better nationalism, which brings people together instead of driving them apart.

The first point needs no elaboration. We are a globalised world, but we are also trapped by geography and circumstance. “Only 3.3 percent of the world’s population,” Tamir points out, “lives outside their country of birth.” Nutopia, the borderless state dreamed up by John Lennon and Yoko Ono, is not happening anytime soon.

If the only thing that citizens of a state have in common is geographical circumstance, it is not enough. If the state is a necessary construct, a nation is its necessary justification. “Political institutions crave to form long-term political bonding,” writes Tamir, “and for that matter they must create a community that is neither momentary nor meaningless.” Nationalism, she says, “endows the state with intimate feelings linking the past, the present, and the future.”

More pertinently, Tamir argues, people need nationalism. I am a humanist with a belief in individual rights, but Tamir says that this is not enough. “The term ‘human’ is a far too thin mode of delineation,” she writes. “Individuals need to rely on ‘thick identities’ to make their lives meaningful.” This involves a shared past, a common culture and distinctive values.

Tamir also points out that there is a “strong correlation between social class and political preferences.” The privileged elites can afford to be globalists, but those less well off are inevitably drawn to other narratives that enrich their lives. “Rather than seeing nationalism as the last refuge of the scoundrel,” writes Tamir, “we should start thinking of nationalism as the last hope of the needy.”

Tamir’s book bases its arguments on the West, but the argument holds in India as well. In a country with so much poverty, is it any wonder that nationalism is on the rise? The cosmopolitan, globe-trotting elites don’t have daily realities to escape, but how are those less fortunate to find meaning in their lives?

I have one question, though. Why is our nationalism so exclusionary when our nation is so inclusive?

In the nationalism that our ruling party promotes, there are some communities who belong here, and others who don’t. (And even among those who ‘belong’, they exploit divisions.) In their us-vs-them vision of the world, some religions are foreign, some values are foreign, even some culinary traditions are foreign – and therefore frowned upon. But the India I know and love is just the opposite of that.

We embrace influences from all over. Our language, our food, our clothes, our music, our cinema have absorbed so many diverse influences that to pretend they come from a single legit source is absurd. (Even the elegant churidar-kurtas our prime minister wears have an Islamic origin.) As an example, take the recent film Gully Boy: its style of music, the clothes its protagonists wear, even the attitudes in the film would have seemed alien to us a few decades ago. And yet, could there be a truer portrait of young India?

This inclusiveness, this joyous khichdi that we are, is what makes our nation a model for the rest of the world. No nation embraces all other nations as ours does. My India celebrates differences, and I do as well. I wear my kurta with jeans, I listen to ghazals, I eat dhansak and kababs, and I dream in the Indian language called English. This is my nationalism.

Those who try to divide us, therefore, are the true anti-nationals. We must reclaim nationalism from them.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

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.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

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?

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

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.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

Formal verification is a complex technology that has traditionally required experts or specialized teams who stood apart from the IC design and verification flow. Taking a different approach, a new release of the Cadence JasperGold formal verification platform (June 8, 2015) provides formal techniques that complement simulation, emulation, and debugging in the form of “Apps” or under-the-hood solutions that any design or verification engineer can use.

JasperGold was the initial (in fact only) product of Jasper Design Automation, acquired by Cadence in 2014. Jasper pioneered the formal Apps concept several years ago. While the company had previously sold JasperGold as a one-size-fits-all solution, Jasper began selling semi-automated JasperGold Apps that solved specific problems using formal analysis technology.

The new release is the next generation of JasperGold and will be available later this month. It includes three major improvements over previous Cadence and Jasper formal analysis offerings:

• A unified Cadence Incisive and JasperGold formal verification platform delivers up to 15X performance gain over previous solutions.
• JasperGold is integrated into the Cadence System Development Suite, where it provides formal-assisted simulation, emulation, and coverage. As a result, System Development Suite users can find bugs three months earlier than existing verification methods.
• JasperGold’s formal analysis engines are integrated with the recently announced Indago debug platform, automating root cause analysis and on-the-fly, what-if exploration.

Best of Both Formal Verification Worlds

Taking advantage of technologies from both Cadence and Jasper, the new JasperGold represents a “best of both worlds” solution, according to Pete Hardee, product management director at Cadence. This solution combines technologies from the Cadence Incisive Enterprise Verifier and Incisive Formal Verifier with JasperGold formal analysis engines.

For example, to ease migration from Incisive formal tools, Cadence has integrated an Incisive common front end into the JasperGold apps platform. Jasper formal engines can run within the Incisive run-time environment. Cadence has also brought some selected Incisive formal engines into JasperGold.

As shown to the right, the JasperGold platform supports both the existing JasperGold front-end parser and the Incisive front-end parser. Hardee observed that this dual parser arrangement simplifies migration from Incisive formal tools to JasperGold, and provides a common compilation environment for people who want to use JasperGold with Incisive simulation. Further, the common run-time environment enables formal-assisted simulation.

The combination of JasperGold engines and Incisive engines supports two use models for formal analysis: formal proofs and bug hunting. In the first case, formal engines try all combinations of inputs without a testbench. The test is driven by formal properties written in languages such as SVA (SystemVerilog assertions) or PSL (Property Specification Language). Completion of a property is exhaustive proof that something can or cannot happen. This provides a “much stronger result” than simulation, Hardee said.

He also noted that formal analysis doesn’t necessarily require that all properties are completed. “You can get a lot of value even if proofs don’t complete,” he said. “Proofs that run deep enough to find bugs are just fine.”

Bug hunting involves random searches, and JasperGold bug hunting engines are very fast. However, these engines don’t necessarily use the most optimal path to get to a bug. So, Cadence engineers brought a constraint solver from Incisive and integrated it into JasperGold. “It looks at the constraints in the environment and gives you a better starting point,” Hardee said. “It takes more up-front time, but once you’ve done that the bug hunting engines can actually take a shorter path and find a bug a lot quicker.”

Another new JasperGold capability from the Incisive Formal Verifier is called “search pointing.” This uses simulation to penetrate deeply into the state space, and then kicks off a random formal search from a given point that you’ve reached in simulation. This technique makes it possible to find bugs that are very deep in the design.

It is probably clear by now that a number of different formal “engines” may be required to solve a given verification problem. Traditionally, a formal tool (or user) will farm a problem out to many engines and see which one works best. To put more intelligence into that process, Cadence launched the Trident “multi-cooperating engine” a couple of years ago. That has now been brought into JasperGold, where it helps “orchestrate” the engines according to what will work best for the design. This is a big part of the reason for the 15X speedup noted earlier in this post.

Integration with System Development Suite

The Cadence System Development Suite is an integrated set of hardware/software development and verification engines, including virtual prototyping, Incisive simulation, emulation, and FPGA-based prototyping. As shown below, JasperGold technology is integrated into the System Development Suite in several places, including formal-assisted debug, formal-assisted verification closure, formal-assisted simulation, formal-assisted emulation, and the Incisive vManager verification planning tool.

Formal-assisted emulation sounds like it should be easy, especially since Cadence has both accelerated verification IP (VIP) and assertion-based VIP. However, there’s a complication. Accelerated VIP represents less verification content than simulation VIP, because you have to remove many checkers to get VIP to compile on a Palladium emulator. That’s because the Palladium requires synthesizable code.

What you can do, however, is use assertion-based VIP in “snoop mode” as shown below. Assertion-based VIP coded in synthesizable SystemVerilog can replace the missing checkers in accelerated VIP. In this diagram, everything in the green box is running in the emulator and is thus completely accelerated.

Another example of formal-assisted emulation has to do with deep traces. As Hardee noted, emulation will produce very long traces, and it can be very difficult to find a point of interest in the trace and determine what caused an error. With formal-assisted emulation, users can find interesting events within the traces and create properties that mark them, so a debugger can find these events and trace back to the root cause.

Formal-assisted verification closure is available with the new JasperGold release. This is possible because you can use the vManager product to determine which tasks were completed by formal engines. It’s important information for verification managers who are not used to formal tools, Hardee noted.

Another aspect of formal-assisted verification closure is the JasperGold Unreachability Analysis (UNR) App, which can save simulation users weeks of time and effort. This App takes in the simulation coverage database and RTL, and automatically generates properties to explore coverage holes and determine if holes are reachable or unreachable. The App then generates an unreachable coverage point database. If the unreachable code does something useful, there’s a bug in the design or the testbench; if not, you don’t have to worry about it. The diagram below shows how it works.

Formal-Assisted Debugging

The third major component of the JasperGold announcement is the integration of formal analysis into the Indago debugging platform. As shown below, this platform has several apps, including the Indago Debug Analyzer. Two formal debug capabilities from the Jasper Visualize environment have been added to the the Indago Debug Analyzer:

• Highlight Relevant Logic: This highlights the “cone of influence,” or the logic that is involved in reaching a given point
• Why: This button highlights the immediate causes for a given event, and allows users to trace backwards in time

More formal capabilities will come with the Indago Advanced Debug Analyzer app, scheduled for release towards the end of 2015. This includes Quiet Trace, a Jasper capability that reduces trace activity to transactions relevant to an event. Also, a what-if analysis allows on-the-fly trace editing and recalculation to explore effects and sensitivities, without having to re-compile and re-execute the simulation.

Finally, Cadence has a Superlint flow that is now fully integrated with the JasperGold Visualize debugger. This two-tiered flow includes a basic lint capability as well as automated formal analysis based on the JasperGold Structural Property Synthesis app. “This could be a very good entry point for designers to start using formal,” Hardee said.

“Formal is taking off,” Hardee concluded. “People are no longer talking about return on investment for formal—they have established that. Now they’re supporting a proliferation of formal in their companies such that a wider set of people experience the benefit from that proven return on investment.”

Further information is available at the JasperGold Formal Verification Platform (Apps) page.

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

- JUG Keynote—How Jasper Formal Verification Technology Fits into the Cadence Flow

- Why Cadence Bought Jasper—A New Era in Formal Analysis

- Q&A: An R&D Perspective on Formal Verification—Past, Present and Future

First, the good news. The EDA industry will grow from $6.2 billion in 2015 to $9.0 billion in 2019, according to Gary Smith, chief analyst at Gary Smith EDA. Year-to-year growth rates will range from +4% to +11.2%.

But in his annual presentation on the eve of the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015), Smith noted that Wall Street is unimpressed. “The people I talk to want long-term steady growth, no sharp up-turns, no sharp downturns,” Smith said. “To the rest of Wall Street, we’re boring.”

Smith spent the rest of his talk noting how EDA can be a lot less boring and, potentially, a whole lot bigger. For starters, what if we add semiconductor IP to EDA revenues? Now we’re looking at $12.2 billion in revenue by 2019, Smith said. (He acknowledged, however, that the IP market itself is going to take a “dip” due to the move towards platform-based IP and away from conventional piecemeal IP).

This still is not enough to get Wall Street’s attention. Another possibility is to bring embedded software development into the EDA industry. This is not a huge market – about $2.6 billion today – but it is an “easy growth market for us,” according to Smith.

Chasing the Big Bucks

But the “big bucks” are in mechanical CAD (MCAD), Smith said. In the past the MCAD market has always been bigger than EDA, but now EDA is catching up. The MCAD market is about $6.6 billion now. Synopsys and Cadence are larger than PTC and Siemens, two of the main players in MCAD.

There may be some good acquisition possibilities coming up for EDA vendors, Smith said – and if we don’t buy MCAD companies, they might buy EDA companies. Consider, for example, that Ansoft bought Apache and Dassault bought Synchronicity. (Note: Siemens PLM Software is a first-time exhibitor at DAC 2015).

What about other domains? Smith said that EDA companies could conceivably move into optical design, applications development software, biomedical design, and chemical design. The last if these is probably the most tenuous; Smith noted that EDA vendors have yet to look into chemical design.

Applications development software is the biggest market on the above list, but that means competing with Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle. “You’re in with the big boys – is that a good idea?” Smith asked.

Perhaps there’s an opening for a “big play” for an MCAD provider. Smith noted that mechanical vendors are focusing on product data management (PDM). This “is really the IT of design,” Smith said. “They have a lot of hope that the IoT [Internet of things] market is going to give them an opportunity to capture the software that goes from the ground to the cloud. Maybe we can let them have PDM and see if we can take the tool market away from them, or acquire it away from them.”

In conclusion, Smith asked, should the EDA industry accelerate its growth? “The mechanical vendors have already shown interest in acquiring EDA vendors,” he said. “We may not have a choice.”

Richard Goering

NOTE: Catch our live blog from DAC 2015, beginning Monday morning, June 8! Click here

Design and verification standards are critical if we want to get a new generation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices into the market, according to panelists at an Accellera Systems Initiative breakfast at the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) June 9. However, IoT devices for different vertical markets pose very different challenges and requirements, making the standards picture extremely complicated.

The panel was titled “Design and Verification Standards in the Era of IoT.” It was moderated by industry editor John Blyler, CEO of JB Systems Media and Technology. Panelists were as follows, shown left to right in the photo below:

• Lu Dai, director of engineering, Qualcomm
• Wael William Diab, senior director for strategy marketing, industry development and standardization, Huawei
• Chris Rowen, CTO, IP Group, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.

In opening remarks, Blyler recalled a conversation from the recent IEEE International Microwave Symposium in which a panelist pointed to the networking and application layers as the key problem areas for RF and wireless standardization. Similarly, in the IoT space, we need to look “higher up” at the systems level and consider both software and hardware development, Blyler said.

Rowen helped set some context for the discussion by noting three important points about IoT:

• IoT is not a product segment. Vertical product segments such as automotive, medical devices, and home automation all have very different characteristics.
• IoT “devices” are components within a hierarchy of systems that includes sensors, applications, user interface, gateway application (such as cell phone), and finally the cloud, where all data is aggregated.
• A bifurcation is taking place in design. We are going from extreme scale SoCs to “extreme fit” SoCs that are specialized, low energy, and very low cost.

Here are some of the questions and answers that were addressed during the panel discussion.

Q: The claim was recently made that given the level of interaction between sensors and gateways, 50X more verification nodes would have to be checked for IoT. What standards need to be enhanced or changed to accomplish that?

Rowen: That’s a huge number of design dimensions, and the way you attack a problem of that scale is by modularization. You define areas that are protected and encapsulated by standards, and you prove that individual elements will be compliant with that interface. We will see that many interesting problems will be in the software layers.

Q: Why is standardization so important for IoT?

Dai: A company that is trying to make a lot of chips has to deal with a variety of standards. If you have to deal with hundreds of standards, it’s a big bottleneck for bringing your products to market. If you have good standardization within the development process of the IC, that helps time to market.

When I first joined Qualcomm a few years ago, there was no internal verification methodology. When we had a new hire, it took months to ramp up on our internal methodology to become effective. Then came UVM [Universal Verification Methodology], and as UVM became standard, we reduced our ramp-up time tremendously. We’ve seen good engineers ramp up within days.

Diab: When we start to look at standards, we have to do a better job of understanding how they’re all going to play with each other. I don’t think one set of standards can solve the IoT problem. Some standards can grow vertically in markets like industrial, and other standards are getting more horizontal. Security is very important and is probably one thing that goes horizontally.

Requirements for verticals may be different, but processing capability, latency, bandwidth, and messaging capability are common [horizontal] concerns. I think a lot of standards organizations this year will work on horizontal slices [of IoT].

Q: IoT interoperability is important. Any suggestions for getting that done and moving forward?

Rowen: The interoperability problem is that many of these [IoT] devices are wireless. Wireless is interesting because it is really hard – it’s not like a USB plug. Wireless lacks the infrastructure that exists today around wired standards. If we do things in a heavily wireless way, there will be major barriers to overcome.

Dai: There are different standards for 4G LTE technology for different [geographical] markets. We have to make a chip that can work for 20 or 30 wireless technologies, and the cost for that is tremendous. The U.S., Europe, and China all have different tweaks. A good standard that works across the globe would reduce the cost a lot.

Q: If we’re talking about the need to define requirements, a good example to look at is power. Certainly you have UPF [Unified Power Format] for the chip, board, and module.

Rowen: There is certainly a big role for standards about power management. But there is also a domain in which we’re woefully under-equipped, and that is the ability to accurately model the different power usage scenarios at the applications level. Too often power devolves into something that runs over thousands of cycles to confirm that you can switch between power management levels successfully. That’s important, but it tells you very little about how much power your system is going to dissipate.

Dai: There are products that claim to be UPF compliant, but my biggest problem with my most recent chip was still with UPF. These tools are not necessarily 100% UPF compliant.

One other concern I have is that I cannot get one simulator to pass my Verilog code and then go to another that will pass. Even though we have a lot of tools, there is no certification process for a language standard.

Q: When we create a standard, does there need to be a companion compliance test?

Rowen: I think compliance is important. Compliance is being able to prove that you followed what you said you would follow. It also plays into functional safety requirements, where you need to prove you adhered to the flow.

Dai: When we [Qualcomm] sell our 4G chips, we have to go through a lot of certifications. It’s often a differentiating factor.

Q: For IoT you need power management and verification that includes analog. Comments?

Rowen: Small, cheap sensor nodes tend to be very analog-rich, lower scale in terms of digital content, and have lots of software. Part of understanding what’s different about standardization is built on understanding what’s different about the design process, and what does it mean to have a software-rich and analog-rich world.

Dai: Analog is important in this era of IoT. Analog needs to come into the standards community.

Richard Goering

Cadence Blog Posts About DAC 2015

Gary Smith at DAC 2015: How EDA Can Expand Into New Directions

DAC 2015: Google Smart Contact Lens Project Stretches Limits of IC Design

DAC 2015: Lip-Bu Tan, Cadence CEO, Sees Profound Changes in Semiconductors and EDA

DAC 2015: “Level of Compute in Vision Processing Extraordinary” – Chris Rowen

DAC 2015: Can We Build a Virtual Silicon Valley?

DAC 2015: Cadence Vision-Design Presentation Wins Best Paper Honors

Let’s face it – the EDA industry needs new people and new ideas. One of the best places to find both is academia, and a presentation at the Cadence Theater at the recent Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) described collaboration models that are working today.

The presentation was titled “Industry/Academia Engagement Models – From PhD Contests to R&D Collaborations.” It included these speakers, shown from left to right in the photo below:

• Prof. Xin Li, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU)
• Chuck Alpert, Senior Software Architect, Cadence
• Prof. Laleh Behjat, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Calgary

Alpert, who was filling in for Zhuo Li, Software Architect at Cadence, was the vice chair of DAC 2015 and will be the general chair of DAC 2016 in Austin, Texas. “My team at Cadence really likes to collaborate with universities,” he said. “We’re a big proponent of education because we really need the best and brightest students in our industry.”

Contests Boost EDA Research

One way that Cadence collaborates with academia is participation in contests. “It’s a great way to formulate problems to academia,” Alpert said. “We can have the universities work on these problems and get some strategic direction.”

For example, Cadence has been involved with the annual CAD contest at the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD) since the contest was launched in 2012. This is the largest worldwide EDA R&D contest, and it is sponsored by the IEEE Council on EDA (CEDA) and the Taiwan Ministry of Education. Its goals are to boost EDA research in advanced real-world problems and to foster industry-academia collaboration.

Contestants can participate in one of more problems in the three areas of system design, logic synthesis and verification, and physical design. The 2015 contest has attracted 112 teams from 12 regions. Cadence contributes one problem per year in the logic synthesis area. Zhuo Li was the 2012 co-chair and the 2013 chair. The awards will be given at ICCAD in November 2015.

Another step that Cadence has taken, Alpert said, is to “hire lots of interns.” His own team has four interns at the moment. One advantage to interning at Cadence, he said, is that students get to see real-world designs and understand how the tools work. “It helps you drive your research in a more practical and useful direction,” he said.

The Cadence Academic Network co-sponsors the ACM SIGDA PhD Forum at DAC, and Xin Li and Zhuo Li are on the organizing committee. This event is a poster session for PhD students to present and discuss their dissertation research with people in the EDA community. This year’s forum was “packed,” Alpert said, and it’s clear that the event needs a bigger room.

Finally, Alpert noted, Cadence researchers write and publish technical papers at DAC and other conferences, and Cadence people serve on the DAC technical program committee. “We try to be involved with the academic community on a regular basis,” Alpert said. “We want the best and the brightest people to go into EDA because there is still so much innovation that’s needed. It’s a really cool place to be.”

Research Collaboration Exposes Failure Rates

Xin Li presented an example of a successful research collaboration between CMU and Cadence. The challenge was to find a better way to estimate potential failure rates in memory. As noted in a previous blog post, PhD student Shupeng Sun met this challenge with a new statistical methodology that won a Best Poster award at the ACM SIGDA PhD Forum at DAC 2014.

The new methodology is called Scaled-Sigma Sampling (SSS). It calculates the failure rate and accounts for variability in the manufacturing process while only requiring a few hundred, or a few thousand, sample circuit blocks. Previously, millions of samples were required for an accurate validation of a new design, and each sample could take minutes or hours to simulate. It could take a few weeks or months to run one validation.

The SSS methodology requires greatly reduced simulation times. It makes it possible, Li noted, to run simulations overnight and see the results in the morning.

Li shared his secret for success in collaborations. “I want to emphasize that before the collaboration, you have to understand the goal. If you don’t have a clear goal, don’t collaborate. Once you define the goal, stick to it and make it happen.”

Contest Provides Learning Experience

Last year Laleh Behjat handed two of her new PhD students a challenge. “I told them there is an ISPD [International Symposium for Physical Design] contest on placement, and I expect you to participate and I expect you to win. Not knowing anything about placement, I don’t think they realized what I was asking them.”

The 2015 contest was called the Blockage-Aware Detailed Routing-Driven Placement Contest. Results were announced at the end of March at ISPD. And the University of Calgary team, despite its lack of placement experience, took second place.

Such contests provide a good learning tool, according to Behjat. Graduate students in EDA, she said, “have to be good programmers. They have to work in teams and be collaborative, be able to innovate, and solve the hardest problems I have seen in engineering and science. And they have to think outside the box.” A contest can bring out all these attributes, she said.

Further, Behjat noted, contest participants had access to benchmarks and to a placement tool. They didn’t have to write tools to find out if their results were good. Industry sponsors, meanwhile, got access to good students and new approaches for solving problems.

“You can see Cadence putting a big amount of time, effort and money to get students here and get them excited about doing contests,” she said. She advised students in the theater audience to “talk to people in the Cadence booth and see if you can have more ideas for collaboration.”

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

EDA Plus Academia: A Perfect Game, Set and Match

Cadence Aims to Strengthen Academic Partnerships

BSIM-CMG FinFET Model – How Academia and Industry Empowered the Next Transistor

EDA investor and former executive Jim Hogan is optimistic about automotive electronics, but he has some concerns as well. At the recent Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015), he delivered a speech titled “The Looming Quality, Reliability, and Safety Crisis in Automotive Electronics...Why is it and what can we do to avoid it?"

Hogan gave the keynote speech for IP Talks!, a series of over 30 half-hour presentations located at the ChipEstimate.com booth. Presenters included ARM, Cadence, eSilicon, Kilopass, Sidense, SilabTech, Sonics, Synopsys, True Circuits, and TSMC. Held in an informal setting, the talks addressed the challenges faced by SoC design teams and showed how the latest developments in semiconductor IP can contribute to design success.

Jim Hogan delivers keynote speech at DAC 2015 IP Talks!

Hogan talked about several phases of automotive electronics. These include assisted driving to avoid collisions, controlled automation of isolated tasks such as parallel parking, and, finally, fully autonomous vehicles, which Hogan expects to see in 15 to 20 years. The top immediate priorities for automotive electronics designers, he said, will be government regulation, fuel economy, advanced safety, and infotainment.

More Code than a Boeing 777

According to Hogan, today’s automobiles use 50-100 microcontrollers per car, resulting in a worldwide automotive semiconductor market of around $40 billion. The global market for advanced automotive electronics is expected to reach $240 billion by 2020. Software is growing faster in the automotive market than it is in smartphones. Hogan quoted a Ford vice president who observed that there are more lines of code in a Ford Fusion car than a Boeing 777 airplane.

One unique challenge for automotive electronics designers is long-term reliability. This is because a typical U.S. car stays on the road for 15 years, Hogan said. Americans are holding onto new vehicles for a record 71.4 months.

Another challenge is regulatory compliance. Aeronautics is highly regulated from manufacturing to air traffic control, and the same will probably be true of automated cars. Hogan speculated that the Department of Transportation will be the regulatory authority for autonomous cars. Today, automotive electronics providers must comply with the ISO26262 automotive functional safety specification.

So where do we go from here? “We’ve got to change our mindset,” Hogan said. “We’ve got to focus on safety and reliability and demand a different kind of engineering discipline.” You can watch Hogan’s entire presentation by clicking on the video icon below, or clicking here. You can also watch other IP Talks! videos from DAC 2015 here.

https://youtu.be/qL4kAEu-PNw

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

DAC 2015: See the Latest in Semiconductor IP at “IP Talks!”

Automotive Functional Safety Drives New Chapter in IC Verification

In 1985, as a relatively new editor at Computer Design magazine, I was asked to go forth and cover a new business called CAE (computer-aided engineering). I knew nothing about it, but I had been writing about design for test, so there seemed to be somewhat of a connection. Little did I know that “CAE” would turn into “EDA” and that I’d write about it for the next 30 years, for Computer Design, EE Times, Cadence, and a few others.

Now that I’m about to retire, I’m looking back over those 30 years. What a ride it has been! By the numbers I covered 31 Design Automation Conferences (DACs), hundreds of new products, dozens of acquisitions and startups, dozens of lawsuits, and some blind alleys that didn’t work out (like “silicon compilation”). Chip design went from gate arrays and PLDs with a few thousand gates to processors and SoCs with billions of transistors.

In 1985 there were three big CAE vendors – Daisy Systems, Mentor Graphics, and Valid Logic. All sold bundled packages that included workstations and CAE software; in fact, Daisy and Valid designed and manufactured their own workstations. In the early 1980s a workstation with schematic capture and gate-level logic simulation might have set you back $120,000. In 1985 OrCAD, now part of Cadence, came out with a $500 schematic capture package running on IBM PCs.

Cadence and Synopsys emerged in the late 1980s, and by the 1990s the EDA industry was pretty much a software-only business (apart from specialized machines like simulation accelerators). Since the early 1990s the “big three” EDA vendors have been Cadence, Synopsys, and Mentor, giving the industry stability but allowing for competition and innovation.

Here, in my view, are some of the highlights that occurred during the past 30 years of EDA.

EDA is a Highlight

The biggest highlight in EDA is the existence of a commercial EDA industry! Marching hand in hand with the fabless semiconductor revolution, commercial EDA made it possible for hundreds of companies to design semiconductors, as opposed to a small handful that could afford large internal CAD operations and fabs. With hundreds of semiconductor companies as opposed to a half-dozen, there’s a lot more creativity, and you get the level of sophistication and intelligence that you see in your smartphone, video camera, tablet, gaming console, and car today.

CAE + CAD = EDA. This is not just a terminology issue. By the mid-1980s it became clear that front-end design (CAE) and physical design (CAD) belonged together. The big CAE vendors got involved in IC and PCB CAD, and presented increasingly integrated solutions. People got tired of writing “CAE/CAD” and “EDA” was born.

The move from gate-level design to RTL. This move happened around 1990, and in my view this is EDA’s primary technology success story during the past 30 years. Moving up in abstraction made the design and verification of much larger chips possible. Going from gate-level schematics to a hardware description language (HDL) revolutionized logic design and verification. Which would you rather do – draw all the gates that form an adder, or write a few lines of code and let a synthesis tool find an adder in your chosen technology?

Two developments made this shift in design possible. One was the emergence of commercial RTL synthesis (or “logic synthesis”) tools from Synopsys and other companies, which happened around 1990. Another was the availability of Verilog, developed by Gateway Design Automation and purchased by Cadence in 1989, as a standard RTL HDL. Although most EDA vendors at the time were pushing VHDL, designers wanted Verilog and that’s what most still use (with SystemVerilog coming on strong in the verification space).

IC functional verification underwent huge changes in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely due to new technology developed by Verisity, which was acquired by Cadence in 2005. Before Verisity, verification engineers were writing and running directed tests in an ad-hoc manner. Verisity introduced or improved technologies such as pseudo-random test generation, coverage metrics, reusable verification IP, and semi-automated verification planning. The Verisity “e” language became a widely used hardware verification language (HVL).

The biggest way that EDA has expanded its focus has been through semiconductor IP. Today Synopsys and Cadence are leading providers in this area. Thanks to the availability of design and verification IP, many SoC designs today reuse as much as 80% of previous content. This makes it much, much faster to design the remaining portion. While IP began with fairly simple elements, today commercially available IP can include whole subsystems along with the software that runs on them. With IP, EDA vendors are providing not only design tools but design content.

Finally, the EDA industry has done an amazing job of keeping up with SoC complexity and with advanced process nodes. Thanks to intense and early collaboration between foundries, IP, and EDA providers, tools and IP have been ready for process nodes going down to 10nm.

Where Does ESL Fit?

In some ways, electronic system level (ESL) design is both a lowlight and a highlight. It’s a lowlight because people have been talking about it for 30 years and the acceptance and adoption have come very slowly. ESL is a highlight because it’s finally starting to happen, and its impact on design and verification flows could be dramatic. Still, ESL is vaguely defined and can be used to describe almost anything that happens at a higher abstraction level than RTL.

High-level synthesis (HLS) is an ESL technology that is seeing increasing use in production environments. Current HLS tools are not restricted to datapaths, and they produce RTL code that gives better quality of results than hand-written RTL. Another ESL methodology that’s catching on is virtual prototyping, which lets software developers write software pre-silicon using SystemC models. Both HLS and virtual prototyping are made possible by the standardization of SystemC and transaction-level modeling (TLM). However, it’s still not easy to use the same SystemC code for HLS and virtual prototyping.

And Now, Some Lowlights

Every new industry has some twists and turns, and EDA is no exception. For example, the EDA industry in the 1980s and 1990s sparked a lot of lawsuits. At EE Times my colleagues and I wrote a number of articles about EDA legal disputes, mostly about intellectual property, trade secrets, or patent issues. Over the past decade, fortunately, there have been far fewer EDA lawsuits than we had before the turn of the century.

Another issue that was troublesome in the 1980s and 1990s was so-called “standards wars.” These would occur as EDA vendors picked one side or the other in a standards dispute. For example, power intent formats were a point of conflict in the early 2000s, but the Common Power Format (CPF) and the Unified Power Format (UPF) are on the road to convergence today with the IEEE 1801 effort. As mentioned previously, Verilog and VHDL were competing for adoption in the early 1990s. For the most part, Verilog won, showing that the designer community makes the final decision about which standards will be used.

How on earth did there get to be something like 30 DFM (design for manufacturability) companies 10-12 years ago? To my knowledge, none of these companies are around today. A few were acquired, but most simply faded away. A lot of investors lost money. Today, VCs and angel investors are funding very few EDA or IP startups. There are fewer EDA startups than there used to be, and that’s too bad, because that’s where a lot of the innovation comes from.

Here’s another current lowlight -- not enough bright engineering or computer science students are joining EDA companies. They’re going to Google, Apple, Facebook, and the like. EDA is perceived as a mature industry that is still technically very difficult. We need to bring some excitement back into EDA.

Where Is EDA Headed?

Now we come to what you might call “headlights” and look at what’s coming. My list includes:

• System Design Enablement. This term has been coined by Cadence to describe a focus on whole systems or end products including chips, packages, boards, embedded software, and mechanical components. There are far more systems companies than semiconductor companies, leaving a large untapped market that’s looking for solutions.
• New frontiers for EDA. At a 2015 Design Automation Conference speech, analyst Gary Smith suggested that EDA can move into markets such as embedded software, mechanical CAD, biomedical, optics, and more.
• Vertical markets. EDA has until now been “horizontal,” providing the same solution for all market segments. Going forward, markets like consumer, automotive, and industrial will have differing needs and will need optimized tools and IP.
• Internet of Things. This is a current buzzword, but the impact on EDA remains uncertain. Many IoT devices will be heavily analog, use mature process nodes, and be dirt cheap. Lip-Bu Tan, Cadence CEO, recently pointed out that the silicon percentage of IoT revenue will be small and that a lot of the profits will be on the service side.

Moving On

For the past six years I’ve been writing the Industry Insights blog at Cadence.com. All things change, and with this post comes a farewell – I am retiring in late June and will be pursuing a variety of interests other than EDA. I’ll be watching, though, to see what happens next in this small but vital industry. Thanks for reading!

Richard Goering

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I'm working on a mixed-signal chip in Innovus. I've got a few analog LEF files that I've imported into my floorplan as macros.

My chip has got two power domains - VCC and VBAT.

One of the macro in the VBAT domain uses VBAT and GND as power rails myloweslife.com.

On doing Special-Route, I've got a lot of minute power rails for the standard cells, as expected.

But, the VBAT power rails are not getting extended till the outer power rings. Only the GND rails are correctly getting extended till the outer power rings.

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

Hi,

  I wanted to open a discussion on the stylus flowtool.  My purpose is to see if there are users out there who are having success with the tool.  To have some discussions around issues that I am running into and to get a user point of view on the problems I am trying to solve.

  Let's start the conversation with : Is there anyone out there trying to use flowtool?  Do you have a centralized flow, or each user has their own?

Thanks, and I look forward to the conversations...

--Craig Crump

Hello, my name is Hsukang. I want to use Liberate to create a .lib file for the following circuit. This is a scan FF with two separate outputs.   The question is that no matter how I described its function, the synthesis tool said its a manformed scan FF.  Has anyone ever encountered anything like this？How should I describe the function correctly？I found that almost standard flip-flop cells are with only one output Q or have Qn at the same time. Does Liberate support scan flip-flop cells with two separate outputs ？

Thanks.

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I'm working on a mixed-signal chip in Innovus. I've got a few analog LEF files that I've imported into my floorplan as macros.

My chip has got two power domains - VCC and VBAT.

One of the macro in the VBAT domain uses VBAT and GND as power rails KrogerFeedback.com.

On doing Special-Route, I've got a lot of minute power rails for the standard cells, as expected.

But, the VBAT power rails are not getting extended till the outer power rings. Only the GND rails are correctly getting extended till the outer power rings.

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

Are they basically the same thing? I am trying to get as much experience with Allegro since a lot of jobs I am looking at right now are asking for Cadence Allegro experience (I wish they asked for Altium experience...). I currently have access to PCB Editor, but I don't want to commit to learning Editor if Allegro is completely different. Also walmart one, are the Cadence Allegro courses worth it? I won't be paying for it and if it's worth it, I figure I might as well use the opportunity to say I know how to use two complex CAD tools.

Hello, I am using Encounter 8.1. My mouse is working fine, but my keyboard is not working well in Encounter. I can type in some boxes, but in many boxes I cannot type. The binding key is also not responding. How do I fix this issue? Thanks.

Respected sir,

How can i design and simulate cmos inverter using digital flow and also ineed to do prelayout ans post layout for the same cmos inverter..can i use cadence encounter for this experiments

Hi,

I was wondering if it is possible to save the coordinates of each stripe and row of the power grid 

and if it is possible to find out the effective resistance between two given points using Voltus

My goal is to built a resistance model of the power grid

Thanks

I have a set of pads for use in a design and I was wondering which attributes should I put on each pin.

Let's say it has the following pins:

   - inh_vdd, inh_vss, CORE, PAD where the first two are for the pad rings, the CORE pin is to use in the die and the PAD pin is the bonding pad.

I guess CORE would need:

   CLASS CORE

   USE POWER  (or GROUND if this happened to be a ground pad)

What about the inh_vdd and inh_vss? Theyu would not have the CLASS CORE, but would I use USE POWER/GROUND on them too?

   USE POWER (or GROUND)

   SHAPE ABUTMENT

And the bonding pad? Should I put it in the LEF? Or would that cause confusion to innovus or Voltus? And what attributed would it use? USE POWER/GROUND only?

Do I need anything in the LEF to indicate that the pin CORE and the pin PAD are essentially the same thing, just different places on the same power pad?

I recently received a student version or OrCad, which I was able to download and install without trouble. However, I do not know how to setup my license.

I received the license file in an email. The instructions within the file were to include my hostname and the absolute path. I do not know what the path should point to so I left it empty. 

I was able to setup the licence server using the license file without any issues. However, setting up the licence configuration utility gives the following messages:

A user environment variable name CDC_LIC_FILE is found. The CDC_LIC_FILE settings you make will be overwritten by this user level variable. Furthermore, I get the error:

ERROR: Unable to update the CDS_LIC_FILE license path environment variable. 

This is preventing me from using any of the software.

What are the steps to installing the license and how could I resolve this error?

Thank you

According to the book Electronic Design Automation For Integrated Circuits Handbook there are mutiple algorithms available. Quote from book: "One of the first complete ATPG algorithms is the D-algorithm [9]. Subsequently, other algorithms were proposed, including PODEM [14], FAN [15], and SOCRATES [10]."

I was wondering which algorithms are used in Cadence Modus.

Hi,

When I import the top level Verilog file generated by Genus into Virtuoso, the power pins are left unconnected. I tried different configurations in "Global Net Options" tab. However, nothing changed. 

The cell is imported with three views, namely functional, schematic, and symbol. In www krogerfeedback com functional view everything looks OK, that is the top level Verilog file. In schematic, I can see the digital cells but VDD and VSS pins of the blocks are not connected. In the symbol view there are no pins for VDD and VSS. 

On top, we are trying to implement a digital block into Virtuoso. The technology is TSMC 65nm. On Genus and Innovus, everything goes straight and layout is generated successfully.

Thanks.

Hello,

I created a floorplan view in Virtuoso ( it contains pins and blockages). I am trying to run PnR in Innovus for floorplan created in Virtuoso. I used  set vars(oa_fp)    "Library_name cell_name view_name"   to read view from virtuoso. I am able to see pins in Innovus but not the blockages. Can i know how do i get the blockages created in virtuoso to Innovus.

Regards,
Amuu 

HI, I have been using the Innovus GUI commands for several things and wonder if those command can be written to a log or cmd file so I can use it in my flow script? Is there such options that we can set?

Thanks

Hi,

I am doing layout for a mixed-signal circuit in Innovus. I want to create a digital donut style of layout (i.e. put analog circuit in the middle, and circle analog part with digital circuits).

To do that, I need to place some pins inside the edge to connect to analog circuit (as shown in my attachment), but the problems is that I cannot place pins inside the edge by using "pin editor" within Innovus. Any suggestions to place pins inside?

Thank you so much for your time and effort.

Hi,

There was tool available with INCISIV called imc to view the coverage reports.

The question is: How can we view the code coverage reports generated with XCELIUM? I think imc is not available with XCELIUM?

Thanks in advance.

Hello, i have a logic output from a D-flipflop which generates a reset signal with variable pulse width. I want to stretch this LOW pulse width with an extra 100ns added to the original pulse width digitally, is there any way to do that?

Hi,

I recently encountered a probelm where scrolling with the mouse wheel and [i][o] button does not zoom in or out both in "Allegro orcad capture CIS 17.2.2016 " .

When I scroll the mouse wheel or [i][o] button, nothing is done.

The thing is that it worked fine until yesterday.

Anyone has an idea?

Thanks,

Dung.

When I enable clock gating in my synthesis flow (using Genus 18.15), my simulation (using Xcelium) on the post-synthesis netlist fails. The simulation succeeds pre-synthesis and also if I remove clock-gating in the design. I use set_db  lp_insert_clock_gating true to enable clock gating during synthesis. I printed out some of the signals from the netlist and can see where it fails (it incorrectly writes a register). However, I am not sure how to solve this issue or what I should be looking for. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Dear all,

I am using Conformal Constraint Designer (Version 17.1) to analyse a SystemVerilog based design.

While performing default HDL checks it finds  some violations (issues) in RTL and complains (warnings, etc) about RTL checks and others.

My questions:

Is there any directive which I can add to RTL (system Verilog) so that particular line of code or signal is ignored or not checked for HDL or RTL checks.

I can set ignore rules in rule manager (gui) but it does not seems effective if code line number changes or new signals are introduced.

What is the best way to customize default_hdl_rules ?

I will be grateful for your guidance.

Thanks for your time.

For a netlist vs. netlist LEC flow we have to solve the following problem:

- in the RTL code we replicate a large array of N x M all-identical hard-macros, let call them MACRO_A

- MACRO_A is pre-assembled in Innovus and contains digital parts and analog parts (bottom-up hierarchical flow)

- at top-level (full-chip) we instantiate this array of all-identical macros

- in the top-level place-and-route flow we perform ecoChangeCell to remaster the top row of this array with MACRO_B

- MACRO_B is just a copy of the original MACRO_A cell containing same pins position, same internal digital functionality and also same digital layout, only slight differences in one analog block inside the macro

- MACRO_A and MACRO_B have the same .lib file generated with the do_extract_model command at the end of the Innovus flow, they only differ in the name of the macro

- when performing post-synthesis netlist vs post-place-and-route we load .lib files of both macros in Conformal LEC

- the LEC flow fails because Conformal LEC sees only MACRO_A instantiated in the post-synthesis netlist and both MACRO_A and MACRO_B in the post-palce-and-route netlist

Since both digital functionality and STD cells layout are the same between MACRO_A and MACRO_B we don't want to keep track of this difference already at RTL stage, we just want to perform this ECO change in place-and-route and force Conformal to assume equivalence between MACRO_A and MACRO_B .

Basically what I'm searching for is something similar to the add_instance_equivalences Conformal command but that works between Golden and Revised designs on cell primitives/black-boxes .

Is this flow supported ?

Thanks in advance

Luca

As title,

How to dump waveform, fsdb in SimVision? 
(Simulation Analysis Environment  SimVision(64) 18.09-s001)
Please help.

Thanks.

It's been a while since you've heard from me...it has been a busy year for sure. One of the reasons I've been so quiet is that I was part of a team working diligently on our latest best kept secret: The MMSIM 12.1.1/MMSIM 13.1 Documentation has...(read more)

Happy New Year! Have you tried the new Transmission Line Library (rfTlineLib) yet? In case you missed it, rfTlineLib was introduced in IC 6.1.6 ISR1 plus MMSIM 12.1.1 -or- MMSIM13.1. You may wonder....Why should I use the new rfTlineLib ? Well...(read more)

Hi Folks, A question that I've often received from designers, "Is there a method to determine the amount of memory required before I submit a job? I use distributed processing and need to provide an estimate before submitting jobs." The answer...(read more)

Hi All, Here's another great new feature that I've found very helpful... Broadband SPICE is a new tool for S-parameter simulation in Spectre RF. In the MMSIM13.1.1 ( MMSIM13.1 USR1) release (now available on http://downloads.cadence.com), a...(read more)

RF Enthusiasts, Come connect with Cadence RF experts and discover the latest advances in Cadence RF technologies, including Spectre RF at the IEEE International Microwave Symposium (IMS) 2014. This year, IMS will be held in Tampa, Florida. Cadence...(read more)

Last year, I wrote a blog post entitled Modeling Oscillators with Arbitrary Phase Noise Profiles . We now have an easier way to do this. Starting in MMSIM 13.1 , you can specify the phase noise as an instance parameter in Spectre sources, including...(read more)

Hi Folks, Check out this great new video on YouTube: CDNLive SV 2014: PMC Improves Visibility and Performance with Spectre APS In this video from CDNLive Silicon Valley 2014, Jurgen Hissen, principal engineer, MSCAD, at PMC, discusses an aggressive...(read more)

Hello Spectre Users, Simulating S-parameters in a time domain (transient, periodic steady state) simulator has been and continues to be a challenge for many analog and RF designers. I'm often asked: What is required in order to achieve accurate...(read more)

Hi All, If you were unable to attend IMS 2017 in June 2017, the IMS MicroApp “7 Habits of Highly Successful S-Parameters” is on our Cadence website. On Cadence Online Support , the in-depth AppNote is here: 20466646 . Best regards, Tawna...(read more)

The Triple Beat analysis is similar to Rapid IP2/IP3 analysis except that it uses three tones instead of two. It is used in cases where two closely-spaced small-signal inputs from a transmitter leak in to the receiver along with an intended small-signal RF input signal. (read more)

Large-signal S-parameters (LSSPs) are an extension of small-signal S-parameters and are defined as the ratio of reflected (or transmitted) waves to incident waves. (read more)