What's in a name? (Composer)

[kferrio]

Now that I've reported a couple of ICE test cases for Composer XE 12 in the premier channel, I have a question about naming conventions. I have seen several different strings which *look* like version/build numbers in the product and marketing materials, 2011.0.104 and 2011.0.0.104 being the most common. And ifort (for IA-32) reports "Version 12.0.0.104 Build 20101006". Then there's the string reported by the compiler selector in the Visual Studio integration.

Naturally, it will be easiest for Intel to help me if my reports are accurate. So... for the purpose of reporting issues... where should I look for the canonical identifier?

Thanks,
Kyle

[Steven_L_Intel1 · Accepted solution]

I feel your pain.... Practically speaking, you can use either the 2011.* or 12.* numbers. The compiler version, internally, is 12.0, but the product uses 2011. This is similar to Microsoft Visual Studio, for example, where the current product is named 2010 but the version is 10. The .104 is the package sequence number, which identifies the process of putting all the bits together into an installer. That is the most important part of the version number after the initial part.

The build identifier is the date the compiler was built, and if you have that handy, please include it, but it's not required.

[kferrio]

Thanks, Steve. I'm not really in pain. If I were in pain, I'd commenton the new branding. But I'm sure you guys are tired of that by now. :) As you say, Microsoft got us accustomed to this sort of thing long ago. No original sin at Intel. I'll try to remember to use the full version+build date, for my own sanity if nothing else.

Kyle