Missing GL headers,libs,dlls in C++ .net

Missing GL headers,libs,dlls in C++ .net

Post by Ji » Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:07:51



I'm attempting to compile an OpenGL app using "Visual C++ .net" and
find that there is no GL subdirectory under my include dir.

I have found several references on the web regarding the GL directory
and subsequent header files as they relate to Visual C++ 6. I'm lead
to believe that OpenGL headers, libs, dlls were included in VC++6.

The ironic thing is that when I looked at the "VC++ .net"
documentation on msdn.microsoft.com , they document OpenGL functions
and include an example of OpenGL code, which again, makes reference
to:

#include <GL\gl.h>
#include <GL\glu.h>

I have looked on www.opengl.org for the appropriate files, and all I
could find was the GLUT 3.7.6 sdk, that only contains one header
"glut.h", one lib "glut32.lib" and one dll "glut32.dll".

Some sites recommend a file from MS (Opengl95.exe), which I have
downloaded, but am hesitant to run, fearing what that will do no
documentation included.

What do I need to compile OpenGL code using "Visual C++ .net" on
"Windows XP" ?

 
 
 

Missing GL headers,libs,dlls in C++ .net

Post by fungu » Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:07:47



> I'm attempting to compile an OpenGL app using "Visual C++ .net" and
> find that there is no GL subdirectory under my include dir.

It's there somewhere. I installed .Net and compiled an
OpenGL app no problems.

Have a look in the "platformSDK" folder. I think they
separated the ISO C++ header files from the Microsoft
headers and put the non-ISO files in there.

Quote:> I have found several references on the web regarding the GL directory
> and subsequent header files as they relate to Visual C++ 6. I'm lead
> to believe that OpenGL headers, libs, dlls were included in VC++6.

 > The ironic thing is that when I looked at the "VC++ .net"
 > documentation on msdn.microsoft.com , they document OpenGL functions
 > and include an example of OpenGL code, which again, makes reference
 > to:
 >
 > #include <GL\gl.h>
 > #include <GL\glu.h>

If you type "#include <gl/gl.h> in your program, it should
work. Did you actually try it? Or did you just go looking
for the files then assume it would fail because you couldn't
see them?

Quote:> I have looked on www.opengl.org for the appropriate files

 >

You don't want to do that. The files are usually specific
to the compiler.

Quote:> Some sites recommend a file from MS (Opengl95.exe), which I have
> downloaded, but am hesitant to run, fearing what that will do... no
> documentation included.

You don't want that either.

Quote:> What do I need to compile OpenGL code using "Visual C++ .net" on
> "Windows XP" ?

Just the compiler.

However my advice would be to stick with VC++ 6.0.
I tried .Net and it's a *big* step backwards in
usability and functionality. Much slower compiles,
slower/bigger .exe files, no profiler, terrible
documentation for the C++ STL, no profiler, etc.

I really tried hard (I'd just spent a lot of money)
but after a few days I decided that really wasn't
a single thing I could point at and say "that's an
improvement over VC++ 6.0". If you read the VStudio
newsgroups everybody else is saying pretty much the
same thing. For C++, stick with VC++6.0. The only
reason to use VS .Net is if you're writing .Net
programs (which VC++ 6.0 doesn't do).

In the end I decided I needed the 3.5 Gb of disk
space more than I needed Visual Studio .Net.

--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.

 
 
 

Missing GL headers,libs,dlls in C++ .net

Post by Wolfgang Draxinge » Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:12:40



> However my advice would be to stick with VC++ 6.0.
> I tried .Net and it's a *big* step backwards in
> usability and functionality. Much slower compiles,
> slower/bigger .exe files, no profiler, terrible
> documentation for the C++ STL, no profiler, etc.

> I really tried hard (I'd just spent a lot of money)
> but after a few days I decided that really wasn't
> a single thing I could point at and say "that's an
> improvement over VC++ 6.0". If you read the VStudio
> newsgroups everybody else is saying pretty much the
> same thing. For C++, stick with VC++6.0. The only
> reason to use VS .Net is if you're writing .Net
> programs (which VC++ 6.0 doesn't do).

> In the end I decided I needed the 3.5 Gb of disk
> space more than I needed Visual Studio .Net.

IMO VisualStudio *5* is still the best. Which stupid guy
decided to separate the InfoViewer in 6?
Ok the compilers are not as good, tell me, who is using
the MS compilers for big realtime apps?
 
 
 

Missing GL headers,libs,dlls in C++ .net

Post by fungu » Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:28:08



> IMO VisualStudio *5* is still the best. Which stupid guy
> decided to separate the InfoViewer in 6?

I skipped 5, it got sent to me on a CD when I sent
in the registration card for VC++ 4. I installed it
and didn't like it much.

I remember benchmarking it and finding out that the
code produced by 6.0 was a bit slower than the code
produced by 4.0, but the rest of the IDE, etc. was
a big step forwards.

 > Ok the compilers are not as good, tell me, who is using
 > the MS compilers for big realtime apps?
 >

You can get the Intel C++ compiler, plug it into
VC++ 6.0 (an extra menu command appears - "select
compiler", that's the only difference you'll see
in the IDE), and you'll get a much better compiler
than the one in Visual Studio .Net. Upgrade your
STL with the latest one from Comeau, and you'll
have a cutting edge development system.

--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.

 
 
 

Missing GL headers,libs,dlls in C++ .net

Post by Ji » Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:06:49


Quote:> Have a look in the "platformSDK" folder. I think they
> separated the ISO C++ header files from the Microsoft
> headers and put the non-ISO files in there.

Bingo! Thanks for the advice.