- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hello,
The dll in the redist for intel fortran 2022 update 1 has the same file version number and product version number than the dll in the redist for intel fortran 2023.2.0
both are 2.0.0.1.0
On the picture attached, on the left, it is fortran 2022 update 1 dll and on the right, it is dll from intel fortran 2023.2.0
dlls are different of course but file version and product version are the same.
Is that normal?
I asked this question because I have some installer that use those numbers.
thanks in advance!
Link Copied
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
The Intel compilers do ship different library files having the same version numbers in different product releases. The only way to differentiate them is by comparing the file sizes.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Barbara_P_Intel , Isn't it a good practice to change the version numbers when something in the dll has changed ? I believe this may cause upgrade issues for certain applications. Could you please clarify ?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
As a former compiler library developer, I am horrified that Intel would ship different DLLs with the same version numbers. This flies in the face of any kind of good, responsible practice. How is an installer (or a user) supposed to know whether it needs to update an already installed DLL? Comparing file sizes tells you nothing other than that they are different, and you don't know what the difference is. Who was responsible for this travesty? A halfway decent build system would automatically bump the last version field on every build.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Steve_Lionel , having just finished two minutes ago the code of ethics for the ISO organization that I found through your Mastodon site in relation to the last meeting of the Fortran committee.
I somewhat chuckled at your choice of words.
Perhaps the use of travesty and horrified could be perhaps toned down a touch to say, a more moderate
Old bean it is a bit of a bother that the error occurred, perhaps we could try better in the future, what?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
John, I think I earned the right to criticize a seriously flawed decision, given that I was once responsible for building the Fortran run-time library (back in the DEC days) and worked with many of the players here. I know this DLL version issue didn't exist when I was working at Intel, and either someone decided that version numbers no longer mattered, or a mistake was made and not caught. Regardless, it is a very serious error and should be addressed. That it is an error may not be understood by the development team.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Steve, no problem, I agree with your comments, but I was amused that I had just read the minutes of the last Fortran standards meeting. The minutes, with you as chairman, had a note saying all work should be to the following ethical standards. On reading the standard I was amazed at how strict the controls were and then I immediately read your note. It was just so funny, I had to comment.
I think the ISO standard is akin to a preschool level of conversation at voice level 1, but that is the modern world. We cannot have a decent argument.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
My apologies! I misstated about the version number of the redistributable DLLs. I did some further research since @Steve_Lionel was so adamant and I know my experience with the redistributable files is limited.
The version number should change. A bug has been filed to remedy this.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
When can we expect the new release with the fixed version numbers?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thank you, @Barbara_P_Intel ! I had a feeling that it wasn't a deliberate choice., but it does suggest a possible improvement to the RTL test system.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Barbara_P_Intel , adamant is an interesting word choice, it's meaning from the olden days, before Fortran also know as bF,
one sample., with apologies to the OED.
With a penne of yron & with an Adamant clawe.
yron is an eagle feather, would seem to fit the people here quite well.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
John,
Adamant is an English singer, musician, and actor. He gained popularity as the lead singer of new wave group Adam and the Ants and later as a solo artist, scoring 10 UK top ten hits from 1980 to 1983. Just saying...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
No news yet as to when a fix will be available.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
This issue with the runtime libraries versioning is fixed in the 2024.2.0 release. Look for that in mid-2024.
There will be an announcement here on the Forum.
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page