PATH on command line builds

[jimdempseyatthecove]

Steve,

On a Windows Server 2003 x64 system the installer sets the PATH to include

First ...IntelCompiler9.1IA32Bin
Second ...IntelCompiler9.1EM64TBin
Similar with INCLUDE (both folders)

Both those Bin folders have files of the same names. In particular IFORT.EXE

When launching a Visual Studio 2005 x64 Win64 command prompt SET shows both paths IA32 first, EM64T second. Is this correct???

IFORT /? runs the IA32 version (splash text says so), explicitly entering in ...EM64Binifort /? runs the EM64T version (splash text says so).

Should I remove the IA32 folder from PATH?

Builds from IDE don't seem to be bothered by this. But I have some NMAKE xxx.mak files. The distro version of the .mak files run the IA32 compiler.

My options are

1) Remove the Intel IA32Include from INCLUDE, remove IA32Bin from PATH

2) Re-order such that the Intel IA32 comes after the EM64T

3) Modify the distribution .MAK files to run from explicit folder (and use explicit INCLUDE).

Jim

[Steven_L_Intel1]

Jim,

Visual Studio doesn't use PATH - it has its own list of directories which you can see at Tools..Options..Intel Fortran.

Yeah, if you checked the box to update the system environment variables when installing the IA-32 compiler, you'll get those folders added to PATH and you don't really want that on an x64 system. If you're developing from the command line, you're better off to use the "Build Environment" shortcuts provided under Start..Programs..Intel Software Development Tools..Intel Fortran Compiler 9.1. This will override PATH (and LIB and INCLUDE.) You can also invoke the appropriate ifortvars.bat (from the BIN folder) in your own scripts.

In a multi-platform environment, a single set of system environment variables doesn't cut it. Microsoft has also moved away from this.

[jimdempseyatthecove]

Thanks for the tips. I removed the IA32 references in the environment variables so other things aren't tripped up by them. I was using the VS 2005 command prompt for x64 development and not the Intel equivilent. Probably wouldn't have noticed it otherwise.

Jim