Intel® Fortran Compiler
Build applications that can scale for the future with optimized code designed for Intel® Xeon® and compatible processors.
28341 Discussions

Porting CVF 6.6 code to Intel Fortran



I'm new to this Forum and seeking basic information regarding recompiling  code from 2000-2007, compiled using CFV6.6.

Forgive me if the introduction is long, I'm hoping to avoid unnecessary back and forth on both sides.


This trading software, with two main applications:

A - testing of different trading strategies on historical data and

B- running a live trading operation, using excel as user interface.


Bothe applications use a large library of common modules (utilities, statistical routines, data handling etc)

The trading application was running until 2012 and then the strategy was discontinued. We are now planning on running it again, and for practical reasons (we dont have the old computers any more) we must recompile everything in a modern 64-bit compiler.

It appears that IFORT is the successor of CVF, and  Steve Lionel's white paper

"Porting Applications from Compaq* Visual Fortran to Intel® Visual Fortran"

plus some topics covered in the forum make me hope that it will be not too difficult to port the strategy testing application.

I have a few basic questions before I start the porting project:

1. Which is the best version of Intel fortran to use: Classic (IFORT) or IFX? I have been assuming IFORT, but just to be sure.

2. What is the reccommended IDE to make the conversion job as simple as possible? SL's memo assumes continuing in Visual Studio ... is this still relevant 15 years later?

3. I have studied the compatibility chart between Intel compilers and Visual Studio

( ) . 

It appears that the latest version of VS one can use with any IFORT version is 2022 17.6.4, which works on Windows 10. But current release of VS is 2022 17.7.6 . I have tried to install IFORT on the latest (community) release of VF and it gave me a bunch of errors. Then I did it the other way and deleted and reinstalled VF 2022 and couldn't find Intel Fortran in the compiler list.

My next plan is to install VS 2019 16.11.31 (Professional) which is the latest stable release of VS 2019 . Doese anyone have a view or suggestion on this topic?

4. Inteorperability with Excel, which applies to  application B: in the CVF world, one would use the example Autodice as a guide, and run the Fortran Module Wizard, which would produce a module containing all the automation interfaces for the lastest version of Excel (modExcelnA.f90, where n was the current excel version). How do we obtain these interfaces for the todays Excel 365 64 bit versions? The latest version of the Automation interfaces module is modExcel9A, does any more recent version exist? Does IFORT have a module wizard?


Thank you in advance for any help, or indication of relevant content on the web.





0 Kudos
1 Solution
4 Replies
Honored Contributor II

Well in relation to IFORT or IFX, it does not make much difference but for "production code" I thing IFORT is still be best choice. At some point quite soon IFX will be the default position.

Yes there is still a module wizard  and there is an example of excel usage in the samples. I have use fortran/excel for many years.

What are the bunch of errors? I would strongly recommend using the latest OneAPI above any older version.  There is some on going issues with latest VS updates with Intel perpetually having to play catch up, I don't know the latest position, I use VS2022 17.0.5 but you wont be able to download that. 


0 Kudos

Hello Andrew, thanks for your suggestions.

I didn't save the error list; it included some missing .Net components and similar.


Do you download the oneAPI Package or only IFORT? I went for IFORT there seemed to be a lot of redundand stuff in the package; but maybe VS was missing those components.

I'll try the install again, using the oneAPI download and copy any errors.

0 Kudos

Yes, I had seen that article ... A lot of info to digest, but, in summary it seems that oneAPI with HPC option is the best choice.

Thanks for pointing it out.

0 Kudos