You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Before writing the equivalent documentation for Windows, perhaps the first thing to discuss is whether we want to require users to have a Windows-equivalent make installed or whether we should maintain a separate Makefile.win for them.
The latter will certainly be more beneficial for Windows users since we don't have to require them to install yet another dependency. But, if most (if not all) numba-cuda users on the Windows platform already have a Windows-equivalent make installed (e.g. msys2, cygwin, etc.), then perhaps this is a win for maintainability since now we just have to worry about updating one single Makefile.
I can take a focused pass on this. I’ll keep it docs-only and add Windows-native test-running steps without introducing a separate Windows Makefile unless the existing repo docs/source clearly point that way.
This will be Codex-assisted, and I’ll manually review the final patch before opening a PR.
@omribz156 so that build.bat script was called by ci/test_wheel.ps1 a few months ago in this PR, and it was the only thing referencing build.bat before it was removed from the codebase. Additionally, it doesn't look like it was getting as many updates as Makefile currently does. With that being said, before giving build.bat a well-needed makeover, I think we first need to know whether we are better off maintaining two distinct files, or whether we should leverage unix-tools in Windows so we can just use Makefile. That's actually why I asked my original question above :)
Activity
acosmicflamingo commentedon May 14, 2026
Before writing the equivalent documentation for Windows, perhaps the first thing to discuss is whether we want to require users to have a Windows-equivalent
makeinstalled or whether we should maintain a separateMakefile.winfor them.The latter will certainly be more beneficial for Windows users since we don't have to require them to install yet another dependency. But, if most (if not all) numba-cuda users on the Windows platform already have a Windows-equivalent make installed (e.g.
msys2,cygwin, etc.), then perhaps this is a win for maintainability since now we just have to worry about updating one singleMakefile.omribz156 commentedon May 27, 2026
I can take a focused pass on this. I’ll keep it docs-only and add Windows-native test-running steps without introducing a separate Windows Makefile unless the existing repo docs/source clearly point that way.
This will be Codex-assisted, and I’ll manually review the final patch before opening a PR.
acosmicflamingo commentedon May 27, 2026
@omribz156 so that
build.batscript was called byci/test_wheel.ps1a few months ago in this PR, and it was the only thing referencingbuild.batbefore it was removed from the codebase. Additionally, it doesn't look like it was getting as many updates asMakefilecurrently does. With that being said, before givingbuild.bata well-needed makeover, I think we first need to know whether we are better off maintaining two distinct files, or whether we should leverage unix-tools in Windows so we can just useMakefile. That's actually why I asked my original question above :)