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
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: zzapper <david AT tvis DOT co DOT uk>
Subject:  Re: xargs still nok?
Date:  Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:46:29 +0100
Lines: 23
Message-ID:  <g4u0i19src8e8i3l24pdo1kdknsdas4ns7@4ax.com>
References:  <090820051538 DOT 16873 DOT 43205AF0000A29D9000041E922064246130A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:38:24 +0000,  wrote:

>> 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.
Ah twigged, the + says batch

So really it's Argh no more Xargs !!

-- 
zzapper
Success for Techies and Vim,Zsh tips
http://SuccessTheory.com/


--
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/