1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 2.0812 Chinese Yuan Renminbi

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 242.9521 Chilean Peso

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.2857 Swiss Franc

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.4124 Canadian Dollar

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 3.5729 Botswana Pula

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 1.6865 Brazilian Real

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 2.0287 Bolivian Boliviano

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.4158 Brunei Dollar

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.1113 Bahraini Dinar

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.5312 Bulgarian Lev

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 25.0054 Bangladeshi Taka

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.4502 Australian Dollar

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 19.5563 Argentine Peso

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.5281 Netherlands Antillean Guilder

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 1.0806 United Arab Emirates Dirham

Haskell Indian Nations University is in the midst of the spring golf season and Head Coach Gary Tanner is hoping they save their best for last.  Already, the Indians have played in three events and have just completed their fourth at the Bethel Spring Invitational.  "We can't make any progress if we shoot in the 80's," said Tanner.  "We've got the golfers to compete but we've got to be consistent throughout the course to make a run at the top."

Maryville, MO – The Haskell Men's golf team competed in the Graceland Invitational which was cut short due to inclement weather conditions on the second day. 

1 Dominican Peso = 0.1815 Venezuelan Bolivar Fuerte

1 Dominican Peso = 0.0618 Peruvian Nuevo Sol

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 2.9115 Venezuelan Bolivar Fuerte

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.9909 Peruvian Nuevo Sol

1 Brunei Dollar = 7.067 Venezuelan Bolivar Fuerte

1 Brunei Dollar = 2.4051 Peruvian Nuevo Sol

This are the Errors i am getting can you please provide the solution.

Checking out license: Genus_Synthesis (12 seconds elapsed).
License 'Genus_Synthesis' (main version: 17.2, alternate version: 17.2) checkout failed.
Checking out license: Virtuoso_Digital_Implem (12 seconds elapsed).
License 'Virtuoso_Digital_Implem' (main version: 17.1, alternate version: 17.1) checkout failed.
Checking out license: Virtuoso_Digital_Implem_XL (12 seconds elapsed).
License 'Virtuoso_Digital_Implem_XL' (main version: 17.1, alternate version: 17.1) checkout failed.
Cannot obtain 'Genus_Synthesis' license.
Abnormal exit.

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.

I have a technology library (given by foundry) with leLsw layer section defined.
I do not want to touch it

I added few layers with an ITDB approach. Now I'm unable to see the added layers, as it is not present in the leLsw layer section of the main techlib.

I want the user of the new techlib to see all the layers by default.(I don't want the users to go to the properties of palette and switch the display option to techfile layers instead of leLsw)

When I place a pcell and do not change the W parameter (default is used) the value is not saved in the OA cell property.

When I change the default value of the super master now, the old pcell will get the new default value automatically because there is nothing saved inside the OA cell for this parameter.

Do you have any Idea, that how we can save the default values in the OA cell properties so that this value doesn't get updated if the default values are updated in the new PDKs

Hi, I want to add values to components in my SiP design such as 1nF or 15nH. There is already in existence a COMP_VALUE property reserved for this as shown during BOM generation. This property is not visible under the Edit/Properties dialog for component or symbol find filters. We have already created user properties called COMP_MFG and COMP_MFG_PN that it editable at a component level. When we try to add COMP_VALUE it is reported as a reserved name in Cadence but this name is not listed in the properties dialog. Is there a way to turn on the visibility and editablility of this or other hidden reserved Cadence property names? How can I assign a string value to the COMP_VALUE property?

Thanks

Hello, i have made a power gain circle for 30dB,for setting a GAIN we need to set a matching network for input and output inpedance.

but in this Gain circles it shows me only one complex number instead of two.(As shown bellow)

Where did i go wrong with using it to find the input and output impedancies needed to be matched in order to have 30dB gain?
Thanks.

Hi,

i'm using spectre HB simulation on PA (Power Amplifier) test_bench to perform large signal analysis (i want to plot Output power vs intput power, PAE and Gain)

Although the simulation returns no error, i still can't plot anything. seem like there is an issue with the ports i'm using. (analoglib ports)

i attach an image of my configuration so maybe you can find something helpful in it. 

thank you all for your help

best regards

Hi All,

I want to capture the transition values of certain nodes in a design (i.e. a digital multiplier built with standard cells) and I use probe -screen command to dump the nodal values in text format. Since I only need to capture these values in the ideal situation, I use -nospecify switch with the xrun command :

xrun -clean R16FA_2009.v R4BE_Test.v tb_stop16.v -v stdlib_verilog_models-sdf30.v -access +rwc -mess -timescale 1ns/1ps -nospecify -gui &

and the probe command goes like this : 

probe -screen tb_stop16.mul16.test.L1 -redirect probe1.txt -format "%T L1 Value: %b"  //Here L1 is an array of wires

Although I expect a single transition at a given time instance, I see multiple transitions occurring in the dumped probe1.txt file. i.e. 

Time: 300 PS : 48'bxx0xx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0xx0xx11x
Time: 300 PS : 48'b000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000110
Time: 4 NS : 48'b001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100
Time: 4 NS : 48'b011000000010111111111001000000110011011001010101
Time: 8 NS : 48'b010000000010111111111001000000110011011001010101
Time: 8 NS : 48'b110100101100000110000111100001010010111001011100
Time: 12 NS : 48'b010000110011100010001110011100010101010001010101
Time: 16 NS : 48'b000010000010000000000000000010000000010010010100
Time: 20 NS : 48'b000011000010000000000000000010000000010010010100
Time: 20 NS : 48'b000001001001001001011011000010001010011010010100

From the waveform, it appears that only the second value (bold)  of the time instance is correct. Since the simulation is without annotated delays, there are no intermediate transitions in the waveform. How could this be possible ?

Thanks in advance

I want to write a transition coverage on an enumeration. One of the parts of that transition is a queue of the enum. I construct this queue in my constructor. Considering the example below, how would one go about it.

In my coverage bin I can create a range like this A => [queue1Enum[0]:queue1Enum[$]] => [queue2Enum[0]:queue2Enum[$]]. But I only get first and last element then.

typedef enum { red, d_green, d_blue, e_yellow, e_white, e_black } Colors;
 Colors dColors[$];
 Colors eColors[$];
 Lcolors = Colors.first();
 do begin
  if (Lcolors[0].name=='d') begin
   dColors.push_back(Lcolors);
  end
  if (Lcolors[0].name=='e') begin
   eColors.push_back(Lcolors);
  end
 end while(Lcolors != Lcolors.first())

 covergroup cgTest with function sample(Colors c);
   cpTran : coverpoint c{
      bins t[] = (red => dColors =>eColors);   
   }
 endgroup

Hello,

I have a question I want to create a cover that consists a sparse values, pre-computed (a list or define) for example l = {1; 4; 7; 9; 2048; 700} I'd like to cover that data a (uint(bits:16)) had those values, Any suggestion on how to achieve this, I'd prefer to stay away from macros, and avoid to write a lot of code

struct inst {

  data :uint(bits:16);
  opcode :uint(bits:16);
  !valid_data : list of uint(bits:16) = {0; 12; 10; 700; 890; 293;};
  event data_e;
  event opcode_e;

  cover data_e is {
     item data using radix = HEX, ranges = {
     //I dont want to write all of this
     range([0], "My range1");
     range([10], "My range2");
     //... many values in between
    range([700], "My rangen");
    };

    item opcode;

   cross data, opcode;
};

post_generate() is also {
    emit data_e;
};
};

Hello,

I find a strange issue when using design variable -> right-click -> copy from cellview in assembler. Cadence version is IC618-64b. 500.9

In fact, I set the value of variable (e.g., AAA = 100), then after I right-click -> copy from cellview, AAA's is updated to other value. In my opinion "copy from cellview" should only update the missing variable to the list, but not change any variable value. 

Is there any mechanism could change variable value when using "copy from cellview"?

Thanks

Hi,

I am trying to characterize a D flip-flop for low voltage operation (0.6V) using Cadence Liberate (V16). This is a positive edge triggered D flip flop based on true-single-phase clocking scheme. After the characterization, the measurements reported for hold constraint arcs seem to deviate significantly from its (spectre) spice simulation.

The constraint and the power settings to the liberate are as follows : 

# -------------------------------------------- Timing Constraints --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Input waveform ###
set_var predriver_waveform 2;# 2=use pre-driver waveform
### Capacitance ###
set_var min_capacitance_for_outputs 1;# write min_capacitance attribute for output pins
### Timing ###
set_var force_condition 4
### Constraint ###
set_var constraint_info 2
#set_var constraint_search_time_abstol 1e-12 ;# 1ps resolution for bisection search
set_var nochange_mode 1 ;# enable nochange_* constraint characterization
### min_pulse_width ###
set_var conditional_mpw 0
set_var constraint_combinational 2

#---------------------------------------------- CCS Settings ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
set_var ccsn_include_passgate_attr 1
set_var ccsn_model_related_node_attr 1
set_var write_library_is_unbuffered 1

set_var ccsp_min_pts 15 ;# CCSP accuracy
set_var ccsp_rel_tol 0.01 ;# CCSP accuracy
set_var ccsp_table_reduction 0 ;# CCSP accuracy
set_var ccsp_tail_tol 0.02 ;# CCSP accuracy
set_var ccsp_related_pin_mode 2 ;# use 3 for multiple input switching scnarios and Voltus only libraries

#----------------------------------------------- Power ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Leakage ###
set_var max_leakage_vector [expr 2**10]
set_var leakage_float_internal_supply 0 ;# get worst case leakage for power switch cells when off
set_var reset_negative_leakage_power 1 ;# convert negative leakage current to 0

### Power ###
set_var voltage_map 1 ;# create pg_pin groups, related_power_pin / related_ground_pin
set_var pin_based_power 0 ;# 0=based on VDD only; 1=power based on VDD and VSS (default);
set_var power_combinational_include_output 0 ;# do not include output pins in when conditions for combinational cells

set_var force_default_group 1
set_default_group -criteria {power avg} ;# use average for default power group

#set_var power_subtract_leakage 4 ;# use 4 for cells with exhaustive leakage states.
set_var subtract_hidden_power 2 ;# 1=subtract hidden power for all cells
set_var subtract_hidden_power_use_default 3 ;# 3=subtract hidden power from matched when condition then default group
set_var power_multi_output_binning_mode 1 ;# binning for multi-output cell considered for both timing and power arcs
set_var power_minimize_switching 1
set_var max_hidden_vector [expr 2**10]
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I specifically used set_var constraint_combinational 2 in the settings, in case the Bisection pass/fail mode fails to capture the constraints. In my spice simulation, the hold_rise (D=1, CLK=R, Q=R) arc at-least requires ~250 ps for minimum CLK/D slew combination (for the  by default smallest capacitive load as per Liberate)  while Liberate reports only ~30 ps. The define_cell template to this flip flop is pretty generic, which does not have any user specified arcs. So which settings most likely affecting the constraint measurements in Liberate and how can I debug this issue ?

Thanks

Anuradha

Hello,

I am using Virtuoso 6.1.7.

I am performing the parasitic extraction of a MOM cap array of 32 caps. I use Quantus QRC and I enable field solver. I select “QRCFS” for field solver type and “High” for field solver accuracy. The unit MOM cap is horizontally and vertically symmetric. The array looks like the sketch below and there are no other structures except the unit caps:

Rationally speaking, the capacitance values of the unit caps should be symmetric with respect to a vertical symmetry axis that is between cap16 and cap17 (shown with dashed red line). For example,

the capacitance of cap1 should be equal to the capacitance of cap32

the capacitance of cap2 should be equal to the capacitance of cap31

etc. as there are no other structures around the caps that might create some asymmetry.

Nevertheless, what I observe is the following after the parasitic extraction:

As it can be seen, the result is not symmetric contrary to what is expected. I should also add that I do not observe this when I perform parasitic extraction with no filed solver.

Why do I get this result? Is it an artifact resulting from the field solver tool (my conclusion was yes but still it must be verified)? If not, how can something like this happen?

Many thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Can

Optimizing power can be a very convoluted and crucial process. To make design chips meet throughput goals along with optimal power consumption, you need to plan right from the beginning! (read more)

Key Findings:  There are a host of issues that arise in mixed-signal verification.  As discussed in earlier blogs, the industry trends indicate that teams need to prepare themselves for a more mixed world.  The good news is that these top five pitfalls are all avoidable.

It’s always interesting to study the human condition.  Watching the world through the lens of mixed-signal verification brings an interesting microcosm into focus.  The top 5 items that I regularly see vexing teams are:

1. When there’s a bug, whose problem is it?
2. Verification team is the lightning rod
3. Three (conflicting) points of view
4. Wait, there’s more… software
5. There’s a whole new language

Reason 1: When there’s a bug, whose problem is it?

It actually turns out to be a good thing when a bug is found during the design process.  Much, much better than when the silicon arrives back from the foundry of course. Whether by sheer luck, or a structured approach to verification, sometimes a bug gets discovered. The trouble in mixed-signal design occurs when that bug is near the boundary of an analog and a digital domain.

Figure 1.   Whose bug is it?

Typically designers are a diligent sort and make sure that their block works as desired. However, when things go wrong during integration, it is usually also project crunch time. So, it has to be the other guy’s bug, right?

A step in the right direction is to have a third party, a mixed-signal verification expert, apply rigorous methods to the mixed-signal verification task.  But, that leads to number 2 on my list.

Reason 2: Verification team is the lightning rod

Having a dedicated verification team with mixed-signal expertise is a great start, but what can typically happen is that team is hampered by the lack of availability of a fast executing model of the analog behavior (best practice today being a SystemVerilog real number model – SV_RNM). That model is critical because it enables orders of magnitude more tests to be run against the design in the same timeframe. 

Without that model, there will be a testing deficit. So, when the bugs come in, it is easy for everyone to point their finger at the verification team.

Figure 2.  It’s the verification team’s fault

Yes, the model creates a new validation task – it’s validation – but the speed-up enabled by the model more than compensates in terms of functional coverage and schedule.

The postscript on this finger-pointing is the institutionalization of SV-RNM. And, of course, the verification team gets its turn.

Figure 3.  Verification team’s revenge

Reason 3: Three (conflicting) points of view

The third common issue arises when the finger-pointing settles down. There is still a delineation of responsibility that is often not easy to achieve when designs of a truly mixed-signal nature are being undertaken.  

Figure 4.  Points of view and roles

Figure 4 outlines some of the delegated responsibility, but notice that everyone is still potentially on the hook to create a model. It is questions of purpose, expertise, bandwidth, and convention that go into the decision about who will “own” each model. It is not uncommon for the modeling task to be a collaborative effort where the expertise on analog behavior comes from the analog team, while the verification team ensures that the model is constructed in such a manner that it will fit seamlessly into the overall chip verification. Less commonly, the digital design team does the modeling simply to enable the verification of their own work.

Reason 4: Wait, there’s more… software

As if verifying the function of a chip was not hard enough, there is a clear trend towards product offerings that include software along with the chip. In the mixed-signal design realm, many times this software has among its functions things like calibration and compensation that provide a flexible way of delivering guards against parameter drift. When the combination of the chip and the software are the product, they need to be verified together. This puts an enormous premium on fast executing SV-RNM.

Figure 5.   There’s software analog and digital

While the added dimension of software to the verification task creates new heights of complexity, it also serves as a very strong driver to get everyone aligned and motivated to adopt best known practices for mixed-signal verification.  This is an opportunity to show superior ability!

Figure 6.  Change in perspective, with the right methodology

Reason 5: There’s a whole new language

Communication is of vital importance in a multi-faceted, multi-team program.  Time zones, cultures, and personalities aside, mixed-signal verification needs to be a collaborative effort.  Terminology can be a big stumbling block in getting to a common understanding. If we take a look at the key areas where significant improvement can usually be made, we can start to see the breadth of knowledge that is required to “get” the entirety of the picture:

• Structure – Verification planning and management
• Methodology – UVM (Unified Verification Methodology – Accellera Standard)
• Measure – MDV (Metrics-driven verification)
• Multi-engine – Software, emulation, FPGA proto, formal, static, VIP
• Modeling – SystemVerilog (discrete time) down to SPICE (continuous time)
• Languages – SystemVerilog, Verilog, Verilog-AMS, VHDL, SPICE, PSL, CPF, UPF

Each of these areas has its own jumble of terminology and acronyms. It never hurts to create a team glossary to start with. Heck, I often get my LDO, IFV, and UDT all mixed up myself.

Summary

Yes, there are a lot of things that make it hard for the humans involved in the process of mixed-signal design and verification, but there is a lot that can be improved once the pain is felt (no pain, no gain is akin to no bugs, no verification methodology change). If we take a look at the key areas from the previous section, we can put a different lens on them and describe the value that they bring:

• Structure – Uniformly organized, auditable, predictable, transparency
• Methodology – Reusable, productive, portable, industry standard
• Measure – Quantified progress, risk/quality management, precise goals
• Multi-engine – Faster execution, improved schedule, enables new quality level
• Modeling – Enabler, flexible, adaptable for diverse applications/design styles
• Languages – Flexible, complete, robust, standard, scalability to best practices

With all of this value firmly in hand, we can turn our thoughts to happier words:

…  stay tuned for more!

 Steve Carlson

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Tuensang on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

A deficiency in handling authentication and authorization has been found with Kguard 104/108/v2 models. While password-based authentication is used by the ActiveX component to protect the login page, all the communication to the application server at port 9000 allows data to be communicated directly with insufficient or improper authorization. Proof of concept exploit included.

scrrun.dll on Microsoft Windows 10 suffers from file creation, folder creation, and folder deletion vulnerabilities.