|
IT IS VS
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Understood. Thank you. Still not VS fan, but I have no choice.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome. I happened to know the answer because I encountered the same problem some time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know if you will find it helpful, but here's an article on configuring Visual Studio for a C++ project. It deals with the same issue you face, and might give you more insights into Visual Studio's processes - maybe. DWinLib Build Process. It can be a pain to set up, but gives a lot of power when you've figured it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanx David. I will have a look. Shao also gave me some good tips.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
modified 22-Jan-23 15:51pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand. The static library I am trying to create explicitly uses calls to another static library (which I did not create). I understand that both with be involved when used by a third application. I have been using CodeBlocks as my IDE of choice. Much more straight forward and has a great editor. Uses GCC compiler.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
modified 22-Jan-23 15:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with Visual Studio, but only the parameters you have set in your project. Including libraries, whether static or dynamic, is a standard part of VS project files.
|
|
|
|
|
All of which may be true, but...
A developer may complain that accomplishing such-n-such is difficult/tricky/whatever -- and C falls into that category.
Then Microsoft comes along and says that Visual Studio will make it easy (and it definitely makes many things easy).
But if VS doesn't make that one thing easy, then it SUCKS!, I mean it won't satisfy that developer's immediate need.
I don't use Visual Studio much because it generally doesn't do anything I need done, not because I don't like it.
What little C I still do, I don't do with Visual Studio.
I really like C#, which in part may have been designed specifically for Visual Studio, so VS is very good for C# (and .net).
I miss Turbo C.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: A developer may complain that accomplishing such-n-such is difficult/tricky/whatever
That is an essential part of the job, and why documentation and help systems are created. I come from an age before Google, so I had to learn the hard way - mainly by buying, and studying, the books.
|
|
|
|
|
'Xactly. Me too. Kids these days expect everything to be handed to them.
I also learned on OpenVMS, which has a debugger, but it's practically unusable.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Kids these days expect everything to be handed to them.
He is no kid 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
unusable? I'm offended. 
Last week I was debugging some ancient FORTRAN, and it did just fine.
Seriously though, it takes a while for the muscle memory to kick in to remember the keypad commands.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
You are obviously hoopier frood than I.
The main issue I had was that I couldn't get the debugger to display the source lines involves. (DEC C)
"User error" I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
when you start moving source files to different places, sometimes the debugger cannot find what it needs - usually "set source <location>" takes care of the problem. Not that it will come up again...
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Turbo C. I miss thee.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you're used to Turbo C, try Embarcadero C++Builder, though I personally don't like the price tags anymore...
That's why I switched for my daily programming work to FreePascal+Lazarus instead of Delphi more than a decade ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I selected static library project, set the parameters that were given. It has everything to do with VS.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
If you selected 'static library project' it is set to CREATE a static library. It has everything to do with understanding VS. If you need one static library to depend upon another then you must understand how to add the dependency to VS. Setting the project type does not make it recursively able to link to other projects of that same type. I believe you would have had to add the dependency to Borland products in a similar manner. (At least I recall having to do so in the past - just the extension differed if memory serves. Or COFF vs LIB, or something.)
And, logically, it is more common for an executable to link to the libraries, not one library to link to another. I've never heard of nested libraries, but I suppose it is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
It makes a lot sense to nest libraries.
I have used that approach many times. Everyone has.
My Font library uses GLFW library to handle rendering.
The font library is used by a higher level application to
handle I/O to screen.
My biggest problem with VS is that it cannot see my includes files and libraries.
Grrr.
#include <glfw glfw3.h="">
fails not matter how I reference that the directory it is located in. D:\code\glfw3.3.8\include
NOT A TYPO ANYWHERE
VS BAD
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
jmaida wrote: My biggest problem with VS is that it cannot see my includes files and libraries.
The steps for each step are outlined in the article I linked to. After dragging the include files into VS you must still specify the paths in the include section of the project settings, and you have to set libraries in another place in the settings as I outline there. Pretty simple once you understand it, but learning that was not as simple as it could have been - I agree with that. It would be nice if dragging a file into the explorer automatically added the appropriate path to the settings, but would require looking at relative paths as well as absolute, since both are acceptable in the project settings page.
|
|
|
|
|
Typo in the post
it's
#include GLFW/glfw3.h (with <> brackets. If I explicit put them this post incorrect displays them)
which VS flags with red underline of #include which is the signal it cannot find the file
even though I have the complete path
d:\code\glfw3.3.8\include in the additional includes field of the applications properties
and it is a valid path to the required file
VS says it cannot find the file
and recommends I use some strange application called vcpkg to install it
Like I say VS ______s
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
If you read my post, I said to use quotation marks around the include, not '<' and '>', so #include "somefile.h". There is a big difference. And don't put an '=' or a ' ' inside the include file (so not #include "somefile somefile.h=""" - just #include "somefile.h". It isn't VS - it is GIGO.
|
|
|
|
|
tried that quotes still no go
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Like Jeremy, I can guarantee it isn't something on VS's end. It is responsible for more pieces of software than you or I can count to in a day. It must be something on GLFW's end with malformed headers. Does the header immediately include another header that is at another location? Is that malformed? Go that direction or another with GLFW taking responsibility, quit blaming VS.
Build the code in my article on your end and go through all the instructions. Then create a GLFW project starting one file at a time without using any CMAKE or any other shortcuts. You will figure it out that way. You will never figure it out just by blaming VS.
|
|
|
|
|
I will. Thank you.
I blame VS because
1. Have 2 copies of exactly the same C file.
2. Put them into VS "exactly" the same way (here is where the rub is, because VS makes that more complicated than it should be as "exactly" is not what has happened)
3. one works fine, the other does not.
4. Did a difference on .project files. Not "exactly" the same. That is what I am trying to resolve.
If it is user error then shame on VS for making it easy to do.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
modified 23-Jan-23 16:02pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
