I'm using Google's ANGLE so I can use OpenGL ES properly on Windows. I really want it to work on the 32-bit version of Windows so I can support as many PCs as possible. Try as I may, I cannot convince the current version of ANGLE to do it. I'm thus under the impression that Google stopped support for 32-bit Windows when they did the same for Chromium.
I do know that old versions of ANGLE do work quite well for converting ES3.1 to D3D. I'd like to find the latest version that did so for 32-bit. Does anyone know what version it was and where to find it?
Alternatively, if anyone knows how to convince the current version of ANGLE to actually compile 32-bit libraries, that would be even better. I've had no luck with this myself.
OK, as of July 2021, it appears I can now compile ANGLE in 32-bit mode again. I can't find any corroborating information from Google, but I suspect they still wish to support 32-bit ANGLE despite no 32-bit Chrome and I was unlucky with the 2020 version I was using. If so, I'm ecstatic about their decision, as the old version I previously was using started to throw DirectX deprecation warnings.
Related
I think the title says everything but just to make sure:
I try to update OpenGL on my Windows Server 2016 (V-Server).
Current version is 1.1 and I need > 3.0.
Thanks
Current OpenGL-Viewer output
Full view]2
Mesa3D provides a CPU implementation of OpenGL. The most recent version (17.1.5) supports OpenGL up to version 4.5, but I can't quickly find any information whether that also holds for the CPU implementation. The FAQ (last update 2012...) does mention supporting OpenGL 3.x presumably also in the CPU implementation, so in any case it should be sufficient for your needs.
I am encountering an issue where nothing is rendered when running a simple OpenGL application through VS 2012 on Windows 8.
I had a little debug renderer I was using to prototype some projects and had it up and running on Windows 7 using VS 2012 Express Edition.
I upgraded to Windows 8, and cloned the git repository with my work on. After installing the latest drivers and installing VS 2012, I ran my application, but nothing displayed, all I get is the screen clear colour. I was getting an exception before but that's because I didn't have the right drivers so when calling glGetIntegerv(GL_MAJOR_VERSION,...) I'd get -1 as OpenGL wasn't set up correctly. It is initialised correctly now and when stepping through, it looks like everything is working fine, the only problem is I'm not seeing anything.
To make sure it wasn't just my code I downloaded some of the Swiftless OpenGL examples and got the exact same thing. My application was using OpenGL 3.2 and no deprecated functionality. My hardware can support up to 3.3, and if it is of any use I am running Window 8 through Boot Camp on a Macbook air.
I have been bashing my head against a wall for the last couple of days trying to solve this but I'm not having much luck, I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone has had a similar problem, I'd be really grateful if anyone can offer any information. If someone with Windows 8 could download and build a simple OpenGL application though VS just to see if they can get something up on screen that would be interesting!
Do you use the good old and deprecated fixed function pipeline, namely immediate mode draw calls like glBegin(), glVertex*() and glEnd()? If so, try to draw your stuff using vertex arrays. Even if this doesn't help in your specific situation, immediate mode draw calls should be avoided at all cost to make the code forward compatible. The OpenGL 3.x core profile doesn't contain these old API functions anymore. I had also a blank screen on my new Win 7 notebook (OpenGL 3.3) because of some stale immediate mode draw calls (FTGL).
EDIT:
For independent GL debugging, I recommend this:
http://www.gremedy.com/
This program allows you to pause the execution and investigate buffer contents, shader programs and more.
After installing the latest drivers
Where did you get the drivers from? Only drivers you download directly from the GPU vendor's website ship with proper OpenGL support. The drivers automatically installed by Windows have only poor OpenGL support.
opengl support is not available for windows 8.their are still techniques to use it on windows its better to search on google coz i tried for minecraft game or u can check here too
Initial note: The question mentions AIX because it is the initial context but the question really pertains to gcc itself, most probably regardless of the platform.
AIX is supposed to be backwards binary compatible: a C program compiled on AIX 5.1 will run as is on 5.2, 5.3, 6.1 and 7.1.
In my understanding gcc should be built to target a specific system (whether the current one or another one in the case of cross-compiling). So, gcc built on AIX 6.1 targets AIX 6.1, and produces binaries usable on both 6.1 and 7.1 thanks to binary compatibility.
Yet gcc itself built on AIX 6.1 is a 6.1 program, so it should execute on 7.1 as is. Of course if I compile a program with it on 7.1, this program might get linked or use headers specific to 7.1, thus making the resulting binary requiring 7.1. So as far as I understand it, I should be able to run gcc built on AIX 6.1 onto a 7.1 machine, and produce maybe non-optimal yet perfectly valid binaries, although they would require 7.1 as a side effect of linking.
This looks too much like rainbows and unicorns dancing in glittery skies. I smell something fishy but lack any knowledge of gcc innards. Please mighty crowd, enlighten me.
tl;dr: Can gcc built on and targeting a version N of an OS/platform be run and used on version N+1 by virtue of platform binary compatibility to produce binaries running on version N+1? If not, what mechanism would prevent it?
Here's enlightenment: your question is way too general. In order to answer it, someone would have to have knowledge of
the operating systems you care about
the OS versions you care about
the gcc versions you care about
and then research the binary compatibility in this three dimensional matrix.
Mechanisms preventing binary compatibility are too numerous and directly correlate to your OS and compiler vendor's ingenuity at breaking it. One of the more common and documented ways being official deprecation of API calls, removal of compatibility libraries shipped, and bridges being burnt, like going from a.out to ELF.
I'm wondering if anyone has any information or speculation as to when or if there will be a native windows version/port of Node.js.
There is an ongoing effort to provide a mingw port of Node.js. Version 0.3.6+ can be build that way.
However that is still experimental and anything but ready for more than quick and dirty development. Even in case this version matures, I suppose that it will always lag behind the *nix versions, mainly due to the fact that the event loop implementations that Node uses were originally written for those systems and APIs.
The windows version may become stable for development at some point in the future, but I hardly doubt it will ever be usable for production.
July 2011 Update:
#nodejs v0.5.1 is the first to ship with an official Windows executable. We're hoping to get some good feedback.
Microsoft has officially gotten involved with joyent in making node.js work natively on windows.
If one or two Windows C++ developers would put in the effort, then they could fill the gaps in the native Windows version and produce a node.js implementation that would be usable for production.
For now, there is a working Cygwin version and I don't know of any testing that shows it to be unsuitable for production. It certainly works fine (version 0.5.0pre) for development.
Have a look at:
http://www.rafaljonca.org/d/nodejs-windows
Which is based on the work of these guys here
http://node-js.prcn.co.cc/
Both good ways of getting node on windows if you dont have cygwin. However after many heartaches I found developing Node stuff on windows easiest by just using virtualbox with the ubuntu image.
Tnx
GT
I am strictly a Windows Dev and I have wanted to mess around with Node.js for quite a while.
It looks like Microsoft, Rackspace.com and the Node.js team are planning on working together port Node.js to Windows.
So, it's not hear yet but it should be soon. w00t!
The Official Node.js Blog
The first stable version has been released: Release details here.
Be sure to check for the latest version as the link above will go out of date.
I need to support Windows 98. The Qt documentation claims this is possible, but there are no instructions. The distributed binaries of Qt 4.6 don't run on Win98 and the majority of Qt applications I have sampled also don't. For several apps that do run on 98, I have asked authors how they did it, but the common answer is that it was accidental and they don't know what factors caused it.
In searching the forums for help, I found only guesses that turned out to be wrong. For example, one belief is that to compile for Win9x, you must build the tools and the apps on that platform. Yet, things I found to run were built on newer versions of Windows.
What is required to build the Qt dev tools and then applications for Win98?
How about cross-compiling from WinXP or Linux?
Are there specific components that can't be made to run on Win98?
Are there particular difficulties with dynamic or static linking for Win98 support?
Here is as far as I'm going to get on this:
You can target Windows 98 using MinGW or VC++ 6 SP5 from any Windows version. Cross-compiling from Linux is doable but not easy to set up.
Qt 4.4.3 was the last version officially tested on Win98. To run the distributed binaries on Win98, you need to install older versions of glu32.dll and opengl32.dll that are available from Microsoft. Due to an unresolved bug, Assistant will launch but can't load the help files. The alternate version in the bin directory, assistant_adp.exe, works fine. It seems the only other potential problem is that QtOpenGL may use features not available on older boxes.
Qt 4.5.3 appears to be still compatible except for WebKit, OpenGL, and Phonon. QtOpenGL expects OpenGL 1.5, which I don't know is even possible on older boxes. I didn't look into Phonon deeply enough to see exactly what the problems are. QtWebKit now requires Win2K or better. The distributed binaries work mostly OK. Assistant depends on QtWebKit, so will not launch, but assistant_adp.exe still works.
Qt 4.6.3 distributed binaries are now completely incompatible with Win98. It may be possible to get some things working with MinGW 4.4 and a lot of hacking.
Building Qt Creator requires Qt 4.6.0 and either MinGW 4.4 or VS 2008.
Wow...interesting mission.
So, basically - yes, there is windows 98 support for Qt. The problem is that there is one big IF. For example if you even try to set some different QTextCodec::codecForName, you'll have to provide 3rd party ttf for this purpose, because in most cases Win98 will not recognize it as valid. If you provide the exact error, while compiling it on win98 machine, I could help you.
"How about cross-compiling from WinXP or Linux?" - If you use ONLY Qt libraries everything goes fine. Otherwise in .pro file, you have to link these libs under win32 and unix conditions. So you could even forbid your code, to be compiled and executed in other systems...
"Are there specific components that can't be made to run on Win98?" - Of course. In .pro file you could include different libraries, for different operating systems.
"Are there particular difficulties with dynamic or static linking for Win98 support?" - As far as I know - there isn't.
//off - But it still strange, that someone want to write application for win98, today...