Compiled on V10, Run on Windows 7?

[lklawrie]

Will something compiled on IVF V10 actually run on Windows 7? Vista?

Linda

[Steven_L_Intel1]

Probably. Of course we never tested this, but Windows is very good at upwards compatibility.

[lklawrie]

I just remember one of the IVF compilers went belly up with some versions of Win 7, right around the time Win 7 came out.

We got caught in that. (long story -- but I should have read some update notes that I didn't).

Linda

[mecej4]

>I just remember one of the IVF compilers went belly up with some versions of Win 7

That is a different issue. The IVF compiler is probably not self-compiled. If you include the IDE in "went belly up", that could have been caused by changes in the Windows API from XP to W7.

I have not seen a single instance of a console application compiled from Fortran or C sources working on XP and failing on W7, using the Intel or other compilers (excluding some 16-bit utilities, including installers, which do not run on W7).

[lklawrie]

Well, that was a specific instance of things being compiled in the compiler and not running on Win 7. I don't remember the specific date -- I'm sure Steve will.

It was not the IDE.

Linda

[TimP]

No, the earlier compiler versions couldn't be counted on to install successfully, due to a disconnect between the ifort installer and the way Win7 detected instruction sets. The problem might not have affected all older CPU architectures.
As others said, that shouldn't have affected the validity of a .exe brought forward to Win7 from an ifort on an earlier Windows version, although that wouldn't have been tested exhaustively (e.g. with all combinations of .dll and static link).

[Steven_L_Intel1]

The compiler itself has never had such an issue, to the best of my knowledge. Tim is referring to a peculiar issue in the installer's license checking code on specific processors.

[lklawrie]

If you say so, back in 2009, we released in late October (Win 7 officially came out in eary October) and had to recompile several files because (quoting from my email "an Intel compiler bug").

Linda