X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:mime-version; q=dns; s=default; b=MGt5D3MIXsw4CkUmwQj0f0XcOXLB/
	vQIoxPIDZoVQ+yjEQVIeZTMdKv0bziubscyX0Dvbybs4tkl9KWjpejJPOgxbtEr8
	3b5iaka7AYkFQaL7ZlEra+s0y4BR+t8N4yxnv/OLTP7Bi/b0JbsyadcvRRLMyJU6
	3I2HesuNna1qAY=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:mime-version; s=default; bh=fQF6lZH7U5C7IIyLtH0H7tMaQl0=; b=vKn
	t8yGdzMOrfdrj2u0nyLlQgcGu4iHXnUaqMeLAKTUv1Du0H91jngu6wnyPHNmHiFb
	baBYTdZ67JmyyXgeSLXEpsjIS9pazCniB+r+NHqczYNuWYLUj0+vNPXUM+03urg6
	O1yIe5KgJ6lpwlrNfcqVNYIinOH/LprtrrNVeNhg=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*MI:sk:87h967o, opposite, pgm
X-HELO:	USA7109MR003.ACS-INC.COM
From:	"Nellis, Kenneth" <Kenneth DOT Nellis AT xerox DOT com>
To:	Achim Gratz <Stromeko AT nexgo DOT de>, "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Editors set x-bit (sometimes)
Date:	Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:37:47 +0000
Message-ID:	<0D835E9B9CD07F40A48423F80D3B5A704BBD4197@USA7109MB022.na.xerox.net>
References:	<87h967obmc DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid>
In-Reply-To:	<87h967obmc.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id uBEDc3WU030577

> From: Achim Gratz 
> .. the latter is slightly less efficient and you have to
> do -print0/-0, but I tend to get it right more easily then the -exec
> stuff.

Really? I always thought the opposite. With -exec, doesn't
find invoke the command for each single found object? While xargs 
allows a single command to operate on a whole slew of objects.

For example:
find ... -exec pgm {} \;
executes pgm separately for each found object while
find ... | xargs pgm
invokes pgm only once for as many files as will fit on the 
command line, which is quite a few.

If I'm wrong about this, please share.

Or, perhaps we are talking about commands that only take
a single object. In that case, you would need to say
xargs -n1
in which case, I agree, it is less efficient.

--Ken Nellis

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -