Running ifort oneAPI using a batch file

[avinashs]

I have successfully installed oneAPI and tested it with MSVS2019. The integration has so far been without any problems. However, when running ifort from a batch file, I get the following error:

warning #31001: The dll for reading and writing the pdb (for example, mspdb110.dll) could not be found on your path. This is usually a configuration error. Compilation will continue using /Z7 instead of /Zi, but expect a similar error when you link your program.

Some background:

1. Due to the large size of the total installation (~ 30 GB), I had to choose a different drive (E:\ instead of C:\).

2. I noticed that there is no ipsxe-comp-vars.bat any more so my batch file does not have a call to that file as in the past.

3. The system path has been correctly updated to reflect the new installation on E: but the INTEL_LICENSE_FILE variable is still pointing to the C:\ location.

4. I uninstalled my previous installation of Intel Parallel Studio prior to oneAPI installation.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

[jimdempseyatthecove]

Is the .pdb of a .dll in question one of yours or one of Microsoft's (as indicated by sample warning for the .pdb of mspdb110.dll)?

Note, not all/many of the Microsoft supplied (debug) .dll's ship with an accompanying .pdb (Debug symbol table).

>>I noticed that there is no ipsxe-comp-vars.bat

There may be a different named file or in a different location

dir "C:\Program Files (x86)\IntelSWTools\ip*.bat" /s /b

Jim Dempsey

[mecej4]

Avinash, in the past I have seen these symptoms when the debugger finds a 32-bit  mspdb???.dll when debugging a 64-bit target or vice versa. Check your path and make sure that the appropriate mspdb??.dll is found.

If that does not help, please post details about the kind of debug target, compiler options, etc.

[avinashs]

Thanks for the responses. The problem was resolved by calling setvars.bat with the appropriate options at the start of the batch files. This has changed from the previous ipsxe-comp-vars.bat as explained by @JohnNichols in the post

https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/OneAPi-Basic-toolkit-installation-problems/td-p/1236790

[JohnNichols]

It appears you have to run setvars.bat after you install the base kit and then the hpc kit - this fixed the problem with the Fortran tree program VS now finds the libraries

Also oneAPI assumes you want 64 bit instead of ia32 - you need to specify this with setvars or it defaults to x64. 

It is not obvious - the HTML setup page after installation is not as good as the old Fortran one. 

It appears to me that INTEL is slowly getting rid of ifort and moving to ifx, ifx is in the main directory and ifort is in a subdirectory -- 

I remember when I had to purchase Windows XP 64 bit instead of the old 32 bit and there were problems with the drivers. 

We live in interesting times. 

[JohnNichols]

I wonder how we know to update, the Software Installer program from Intel is now gone.  

Is there something similar - also I cannot see how to pick the Fortran compiler you want. 

[andrew_4619]

John, The update manager still exists in my system after a OneApi install. Having said that it hasn't worked well for a long long time.

[JohnNichols]

It appears not to pick up the API install as there is no licence file.

It is not installed with API

[mecej4]

You probably noticed that when you downloaded the OneAPI installers you did not have to sign in. Clearly, the new installers do not know (and do not care to know) particulars about the user, whereas previously you had to sign into the Intel Registration Center before downloading, and serial numbers/license files were used then.

Thus, in the new system the ISM would have little to do, so it is understandable that Intel would not want to use it for the OneAPI software.

You may have also noticed that Intel is removing download links for older redistributables that could be downloaded in the past without needing to register.

Users of third party packages such as Abaqus, Matlab, etc., will have to get used to this new reality.

[JohnNichols]

The ISM was useful for updating the software saved having to keep an eye out for updates.   I wonder how they will do that now

[andrew_4619]

I found it particularly useless for notifying about updates. It never recognised new versions and I always saw updated from email notifications before the updater.