Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/03/12/17:39:09
Andrew,
At 13:59 2003-03-12, Andrew Markebo wrote:
>/ <fergus AT bonhard DOT uklinux DOT net> wrote:
>|>> Got two words for you: 'find' and 'xargs'... ;-)
>|
>| Thank you. I guess I phrased myself badly. I wasn't saying "How do I do
>| this?" (I think ls -AlR gives me pretty well what I was after). I was saying
>| "Once I could do this. Now I can't. Does anybody know if anything has
>| altered recently? and can anybody explain the phenomenon?" Anyway, it seems
>| from an earlier response to be something bash-related, so I imagine for the
>| moment I am stuck with it. Thanks again. Fergus
>
>Well it is related to the shell yes. Limitation of the length of the
>prompt the shell can handle. (I think ;-))
The prompt? Did I miss something?
There's a limit in all Unix / Linux / POSIX systems on the amount of
argument and evironment data that can be passed through the exec(2).
That limit varies from system to system, naturally. There might be a
POSIX lower bound on that limit, but I'm too lazy to look that up at
the moment (it doesn't show up in "ulimit -a").
So if you've got to deal with unbounded quantities of argument data,
you've got to be prepared to deal with some kind of limit. Xargs is a
generic solution when the arguments don't all need to be processed in a
single invocation of the program to which those arguments are being
passed. In other cases, it may be necessary to implement a scheme
whereby the program can read argument strings from a file.
>More and more files coming into the subdir, or the contents are
>static? Or hmm, could be a compilation switch to the compilation of
>bash, but wouldn't think so..
>
> /Andy
Randall Schulz
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -