Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
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
From: ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake)
To: zzapper <david AT tvis DOT co DOT uk>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: xargs still nok?
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:38:24 +0000
Message-Id: <090820051538.16873.43205AF0000A29D9000041E922064246130A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net>
X-Authenticated-Sender: ZXJpY2JsYWtlQGNvbWNhc3QubmV0

> thnx everybody for xargs tutorial (bit of a strange beast xargs!).
> Here's the crux of the matter ISFAIUI
> 
> if you want to pipe the o/p of find then xargs will 'regulate' the flow of 
> filenames
> 
> if you use the -exec method that is inherently on a per file basis so does not 
> require xargs but
> with a speed penalty for a large number of files

You missed a point - the relatively new POSIX-mandated find
`-exec utility {} +' form does the same thing as basic xargs, and
with one less process, so it is even faster than piping find to xargs.

--
Eric Blake



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