As the title says, libiomp5md.dll seems to be required to run applications compiled with /MT switch which I believe to be an error. If Iselect static linking I mean it!
I see now that in Visual Studio 2008 Microsoft did the same stupid thing. Sigh.
In my opinion, since theOpenMP is also part of the runtime (in the sense that it contains functionality needed at program run-time), it should exhibit the same behavior as the C and C++ runtime librarieswith regardsto linking. In other words, specifying /MT for a project with no external dependencies should produce a standalone executable.
I understandthemotivation behind the change,and I am fully aware of the problem caused by multiple statically linked OpenMP libraries (I faced it myself),but this is one of those cases whereI believe the opt-in strategywould be a muchbetter solution. Iwould leave /MTswitch alone and add /Qopenmp-link:dynamic. That way the default for simple projects (single.EXE or .DLL)would be to link statically, and you could always override it for more complex projects.
Guys - Slightly off topic, but related. The latest linpack (10.1) for windows asks for that same file to run (libiomp5md.dll). I have been googling in an attempt to locate it so I can run linpack, but to no end. Where can one obtain libiomp5md.dll?
You see, that is exactly what I have been expecting to hear. Since /MT no longer means "produce standalone executable" and the setup build process for linpack is most likely automated and doesn't check binary dependencies (which can't be checked without installing on a clean computer and attempting to run the program with human supervision after each build) it failed to include newly required OpenMP DLL.
That mishap is precisely the reason why such behavior changes should be opt-in.
With that said, I am expecting to see more customer reports like this one as people start using 11.0 instead of 10.1 compiler in their projects because the change wasn't properly documented in the compiler Release Notes.
In this case Intel followed suit after Microsoft introduced identical change in their compiler, but in my opinion they didn't have to copy the bad part of Microsoft's decision -- they could have done it smarter.
I presume you are asking about Windows version?
You could do one of the following depending on how involved you want to become:
1. Submit a problem report on Premier Support (https://premier.intel.com/). If you are not already registered, you can register for free (package ID to report is: w_lpk_p_10.1.0.002)
2. Post the report about missing DLL along with a link to the download page in the Intel Math Kernel Library forum and wait for someone from Intel to read it, address the issue and publish new download.
3. Download and install the trial version of Intel Math Kernel Library which should contain the required DLL.
The option #3 would be the easy way out. Personally I would go for the option #1 because I am pedantic -- if Linpack is a standalone download (and it is) it shouldn't have unresolved dependencies.
If you find my answer helpfull please rate my post. Thank you.
Slightly off-topic - but still related to the thread subject -
I did probably fall into problem related to this 'new' /MT behaviour - first of all - I am NOT using OpenMP (however I'm using parallerisation) - therefore I do not expect that my executable is dependant of any OpenMP library.
What a surprise - when I do start the program - on one of my PC I can see quite annoying message:
Cannot find import; DLL may be missing, corrupt, or wrong version
File "libguide40.dll", error 998
Well - using /MT - I was sure that all the libs are statically linked (I'm wrong - ok) - but why the hell libguide40 is requested by my executable? In your help it is written that it is used only for OpenMP support - there is no information that it is used for paraller option. Or OpenMP library is required also due to other compiler settings / other libraries?
With previous version of Intel Compiler I had no such issues btw.
Auto-parallelization (using -Qparallel) uses OpenMP. Therefore you fell into the trap of a poorly documented breaking change of /MT switch behavior which I described above.
As I said this is Microsoft's screwup to begin with -- they were the first to decouple OpenMP linkage from CRT linkage and in my opinion they did it in a completely wrong way.
I understand the neccessity of the change, but /MT switch always implied standalone executable, and OpenMP itself (however decoupled it may seem because of being in a separate library) is still part of the language, and thus should be treated in the same manner as the language runtime.
What I would really like to know is why OpenMP was put into the separate library to begin with?
Why it wasn't handled in the same manner as the CRT when it comes to multiple inclusions?
If I remember correctly you can safely link several library and object files which are all referencing CRT functions as long as they use the same linkage type (all static or all dynamic). Why OpenMP wasn't made a part of CRT is really beyond me. It would be nice if someone knowledgeable from Intel could answer that.
Not so much off topic. /Qparallel generates OpenMP run-time code automatically, rather than by use of directives. At link time, /Qparallel and /Qopenmp are equivalent. With 11.0, both should use libiomp5, and it should be possible to use them together, with OpenMP directives taking precedence.
Currently, I have the 11.0 64-bit linux compiler up, and I notice that combined OpenMP and parallel with -msse3 is compensating for some missed-vectorization cases, including sometimes transform(), and a case where optimization has been reserved for -xsse4.1 since that hardware feature was introduced. However, -parallel nearly always loses for the non-vectorizable cases. When -openmp is removed, -parallel will parallelize most of the OpenMP loops, but not always with the right schedule, and with threading kicking in for cases which are too small to break even.
The point is that the -openmp link option works for the object built with -parallel, as the two are the same at link time. The writers of the documentation should take your point about including /Qparallel in the remarks which apply to both /Qparallel and /Qopenmp.
Thanks a lot for clarification. It's a pity, there was no remark that QParaller is using OpenMP - and we have to learn that with a pain. Anyway - having an error on one of my PC that libguide40.dll is not working (and having no time to check the reason. This is related probably to older version of the DLL??) - I have really no choice other than link static the lib.
From all the above messages - in fact - I did not caugh-up the real reason why static link is not a solution (seeing size of my program growing from 2200 up to 2350 - explanation that it's a matter of size does not sound reasonable for me).
But let it leave, still I found this compiler much better than MS one.
Executable size doesn't have anything to do with this. The problem they are trying to avoid by dynamic linkage of OpenMP library appears if you for example use statically linked OpenMP in several components in your project (say EXE and a DLL) -- then you have multiple initializations of the OpenMP library at startup which may cause all sorts of issues to creep up.