ifort -v bash: ifort: command not found, everything else seems to be here, ICC, etc.....HELP!!

[triplesquarednine]

so i have installed Intel's professional suite for linux,

i am using fedora 12... it is a DEV-box and was setup that way. obviously the installer wouldn't recognise fc12, glibc or kernel, but i understand this is a bug in the installer and it isn't officially supported, but i have put everything into place that this software needs, and it should be working....

i have gcc, g++, compat-libstdc++-33, and all other libraries requested are correctly installed.

i can see versions on all of them...

ICC i can see as well, and version (11.1)

i see everything else in the standard installation folders, but i cannot find ifort for the life of me! the only instances of anything with the name "ifort" on my system are:

linux-ifort.cmake, ifort.py, ifort.pyc, ifort.pyo and windows ifort.cmake

now i was expecting to be able to type: " ifort -V " and expect some output??

what have i done wrong?? i followed the install guide to the letter, as well as checked out all links provided. in the documentation provided.

why would everything but ifort be there???? ICC seems to have installed fine?

any help would be appreciated, and i can provide any information needed.

thanx

ts9

PS: intel might want to follow more standard guidelines for installation on linux machines,

it would seem to me the approuch is a little backward, but then again maybe that is why i am

continuing to have issues....

again, anyone who can help please contact me!!!

[Kevin_D_Intel · Accepted solution]

Its not a bug that the installer doesn't recognize FC12. There's no official support for FC12 currently. Supported distros are listed in the Release notes.

From the description it sounds like you may have only obtained/installed the Intel C++ package. The compilers are not packaged together.

If youobtained the latest Intel C++ 11.1 update 5, then you perhaps obtained/installed something named: l_cproc_p_11.1.069.tgz

TheIntel Fortran 11.1 update 5installation package is named: l_cprof_p_11.1.069.tgz

The easily overlooked difference is the highlighted "c" vs. "f" above.

The two installation files only share a common instance of MKL. So if you installed everything from the Intel C++ package, then you already have MKL installed and can skip installing that component when installing the Intel Fortran compiler package.

[mohammad24]

Dear I saw that you have responsed a lot of comment , so I need you help urgently,

Actually I want to install Ifort andMKL on RedHat 4 Linux, but first of all I do not have this software (any body can help me to find a freely version ?)

[Kevin_D_Intel]

You can obtain a free 30-day evaluation (here) or if your use qualifies, a Non-commercial license (here).

[triplesquarednine]

great. :)

thanks for your reply,

that was a silly mis-map on my part, i had thought that everything was installed

through the other installer. the "C vs. F" was a little confusing. i have switched my

questions for fedora 12 related problems, onto the Fedora forums, as not to waste space here.

i am told it can just just find, and that the intel installer is nothing to worry about.

i am excited to be using Intel's products to test and use non-commercially

so thank you, and that Intel for providing these tools!

i will only opst here now, for specific "Intel related problems"...

and a quick question, if i may?

does intel plan to eventually support all of GCC? i hear that so far ICC works well,

although there are still certain incompatibilities...

ts9

[TimP]

does intel plan to eventually support all of GCC? i hear that so far ICC works well,

Not certain what you mean by this. icc support lags a little behind current gcc releases, but it's imperative to support running on top of the gcc versions which come with major Enterprise linux, as well as Ubuntu distributions which are mentioned in the notes about support. So you can look for compatibility with new RHEL SLES and Ubuntu versions soon after they are released.

Perhaps you make the point that it's a little indirect to have to look up the gcc versions associated with those distros in order to figure out which gcc versions have been tested fully with Intel compilers. However, the testing has to be performed against one of those distros, so that is what is quoted.

As you will see here, bug reports are accepted about problems associated with gcc versions up to the current released one, and they often get fixed well before those gcc versions appear in RHEL.

[triplesquarednine]

i see.

i guesss i was referring to areas where source code may contain a function that GCC recognises,

but that same function ICC doesn't know what to do with. i have little experience with this myself,

but i have read elsewhere that there are differences between them and in some cases,

ICC can't compile certain GCC code. meaning that there isn't transparency between the two..

so that is what my question was refering too...

have i been misled? or am i correct?

ts9

[Ron_Green]

The language syntax accepted by gcc is a moving target. There are codes written for gcc 3 that won't compile under gcc 4. So you have to be careful about language syntax and gcc and icc versions. For example, If you take a really old icc version and try to compile code written specifically for gcc 4, it may not work. But in the same way, that gcc 4 syntax may not be accepted by gcc 2, right?

Keep icc up to date. Read the ReleaseNotes to learn the versions of gcc supported by icc. If a code that compiles with a supported version of gcc does not compile with icc, it's a bug and should be reported.

[triplesquarednine]

thank you for the explanation,

yes of course it makes sense that gcc 4 syntax may not be accepted bt GCC 2.

the same is true of ICC. already, i had to change some syntax when compiling,

firefox because the tutorial i was following was using syntax that newer

versions of ICC don't use. so i rewrote those spots, and firefox compiled fine!

it was a good start in getting my feet wet using ICC. i am really impressed so far

with intel's tools, with a persistent cache added to my linux box, and the intel-optimized

firefox, i no longer am irritated that MS internet explorer is faster. mine feels just as fast...

as far as bug reporting goes, when i find one, and i am sure it is a bug, no worries

i will be reporting them :)

cheerz, and thank you for the info!

ts9