| 1 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 2 |
> I haven't reread the fine mans for a while but iirc, + could lead you to |
| 3 |
> hit the argument buffer limit of your shell. xargs has --max-args to get |
| 4 |
> around that and is also way faster than any -exec variant (at least |
| 5 |
> that's what the bench I did on a PIV2.6Ghz showed me about 4 months ago) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
It doesn't: find will just execute the command as many times as needed (each |
| 8 |
time with an argument length maximally less than ARG_MAX. Well, it did when |
| 9 |
we tested this a couple of months ago.) So it's optimal in that sense. I |
| 10 |
have no idea on the timing measurements, but I don't like pipes and |
| 11 |
subshells as a rule (externals are bad enough!;>) It'd be interesting to |
| 12 |
see measurements over 100000 loops with long argument lists requiring |
| 13 |
multiple invocations per pass, I suppose. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
An array expansion can lead to an argument length greater than ARG_MAX |
| 16 |
however, eg funcToFix "${list[@]}" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
(I'd be kind of perturbed if the last case were infeasible since it would |
| 19 |
imply poor memory handling in BASH, and limit the scope of its usability.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives