Circuitikz Wire Kink Thingy When Wires Cross

Question

I'm looking for a way to cross wires in Circuitikz.

1B in the above picture shows what I'm after.

Answer 1

Example has been taken from the circuitikz manual.

Code

\documentclass[tikz]{standalone}
\usepackage{circuitikz}

\tikzset{
    declare function={% in case of CVS which switches the arguments of atan2
        atan3(\a,\b)=ifthenelse(atan2(0,1)==90, atan2(\a,\b), atan2(\b,\a));
    },
    kinky cross radius/.initial=+.125cm,
    @kinky cross/.initial=+,
    kinky crosses/.is choice,
    kinky crosses/left/.style={@kinky cross=-},
    kinky crosses/right/.style={@kinky cross=+},
    kinky cross/.style args={(#1)--(#2)}{
        to path={
            let \p{@kc@}=($(\tikztotarget)-(\tikztostart)$),
            \n{@kc@}={atan3(\p{@kc@})+180} in
            -- ($(intersection of \tikztostart--{\tikztotarget} and #1--#2)!%
            \pgfkeysvalueof{/tikz/kinky cross radius}!(\tikztostart)$)
            arc [ radius     =\pgfkeysvalueof{/tikz/kinky cross radius},
            start angle=\n{@kc@},
            delta angle=\pgfkeysvalueof{/tikz/@kinky cross}180 ]
            -- (\tikztotarget)
        }
    }
}

\begin{document}
\begin{circuitikz}[thick, line cap=rect, nodes={line cap=butt}]
\draw [x=+.8cm, y=+1.1cm]
  (2,4.5) --               (0,4.5)
          to [Tpmos, n=p1] (0,3  ) coordinate (a-a)
          to [Tnmos, n=n1] (0,1.5)
          to [Tnmos, n=n2] (0,0  ) node[ground] {}
  (2,4.5) to [Tpmos, n=p2] (2,3  ) coordinate (a-b)
          to [short, -*]   (a-a)
  (p1.G)  to [kinky cross=(a-a)--(a-b), kinky crosses=left] (n1.G)
          to [short, *-o]  ([shift=(right:3)]n1.G) coordinate (b-b)
  ([shift=(right:2)] n2.G) node[circ] {}
          -- (n2.G-|p2.G)
          to [kinky cross=(n1.G)--(b-b)] (p2.G)
  (n2.G)  to [short, -o]   ([shift=(right:3)] n2.G)
  (a-a)   to [short, -o]   (-1,3  );
\end{circuitikz}
\end{document}

Output

Answer 2

A to[crossing] connection works too. This is less adaptive than Qrrbrbirlbel's answer, however: compare the result of the two snippets below.

\begin{circuitikz}
    \draw (0,0)
        coordinate(A)
        to[short] ++(2,-1)  % \
        coordinate(B);
    \draw (0,-1)
        to[kinky cross=(A)--(B), kinky crosses=left] ++(1,1);  % /
\end{circuitikz}

versus

\begin{circuitikz}
    \draw (0,0)
        coordinate(A)
        to[short] ++(2,-1)  % \
        coordinate(B);
    \draw (0,-1)
        to[crossing] ++(1,1);  % /
\end{circuitikz}

You'll see that by using the in-built to[crossing], you miss the actual crossing. Also, that kink is smaller than Qrrbrbirlbel's kink, which is perhaps less desirable too.