find -exec {} + argument list limit
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I know that when the maximum argument list size is reached, xargs keeps creating new lists until all of the files are included;
but does find -exec <command> {} + do the same thing or will it not work if the size of the list exceeds the output of getconf ARG_MAX?
find xargs arguments
asked Nov 20 at 10:32
EmmaV
1,0591330
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I know that when the maximum argument list size is reached, xargs keeps creating new lists until all of the files are included;
but does find -exec <command> {} + do the same thing or will it not work if the size of the list exceeds the output of getconf ARG_MAX?
find xargs arguments
asked Nov 20 at 10:32
EmmaV
1,0591330
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I know that when the maximum argument list size is reached, xargs keeps creating new lists until all of the files are included;
but does find -exec <command> {} + do the same thing or will it not work if the size of the list exceeds the output of getconf ARG_MAX?
find xargs arguments
asked Nov 20 at 10:32
EmmaV
1,0591330
I know that when the maximum argument list size is reached, xargs keeps creating new lists until all of the files are included;
but does find -exec <command> {} + do the same thing or will it not work if the size of the list exceeds the output of getconf ARG_MAX?
find xargs arguments
find xargs arguments
asked Nov 20 at 10:32
EmmaV
1,0591330
asked Nov 20 at 10:32
EmmaV
1,0591330
asked Nov 20 at 10:32
EmmaV
1,0591330
asked Nov 20 at 10:32
EmmaV
1,0591330
asked Nov 20 at 10:32
EmmaV
1,0591330
1,0591330
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
Yes, find -exec ... {} + runs the given command as many times as necessary to accommodate all the arguments without exceeding the maximum argument list size in each invocation. This is specified by POSIX:
If the primary expression is punctuated by a <plus-sign>, the primary shall always evaluate as true, and the pathnames for which the primary is evaluated shall be aggregated into sets. [...] An argument containing only the two characters "
{}" shall be replaced by the set of aggregated pathnames, with each pathname passed as a separate argument to the invoked utility in the same order that it was aggregated. The size of any set of two or more pathnames shall be limited such that execution of the utility does not cause the system's {ARG_MAX} limit to be exceeded.
(emphasis mine).
answered Nov 20 at 10:35
Stephen Kitt
159k24353426
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It does the same thing, i.e. using -exec ... {} + will execute the given utilitity with batches of found pathnames, one or several times. This is what this syntax is for.
answered Nov 20 at 10:36
Kusalananda
118k16222360
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
Yes, find -exec ... {} + runs the given command as many times as necessary to accommodate all the arguments without exceeding the maximum argument list size in each invocation. This is specified by POSIX:
If the primary expression is punctuated by a <plus-sign>, the primary shall always evaluate as true, and the pathnames for which the primary is evaluated shall be aggregated into sets. [...] An argument containing only the two characters "
{}" shall be replaced by the set of aggregated pathnames, with each pathname passed as a separate argument to the invoked utility in the same order that it was aggregated. The size of any set of two or more pathnames shall be limited such that execution of the utility does not cause the system's {ARG_MAX} limit to be exceeded.
(emphasis mine).
answered Nov 20 at 10:35
Stephen Kitt
159k24353426
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
Yes, find -exec ... {} + runs the given command as many times as necessary to accommodate all the arguments without exceeding the maximum argument list size in each invocation. This is specified by POSIX:
If the primary expression is punctuated by a <plus-sign>, the primary shall always evaluate as true, and the pathnames for which the primary is evaluated shall be aggregated into sets. [...] An argument containing only the two characters "
{}" shall be replaced by the set of aggregated pathnames, with each pathname passed as a separate argument to the invoked utility in the same order that it was aggregated. The size of any set of two or more pathnames shall be limited such that execution of the utility does not cause the system's {ARG_MAX} limit to be exceeded.
(emphasis mine).
answered Nov 20 at 10:35
Stephen Kitt
159k24353426
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
Yes, find -exec ... {} + runs the given command as many times as necessary to accommodate all the arguments without exceeding the maximum argument list size in each invocation. This is specified by POSIX:
If the primary expression is punctuated by a <plus-sign>, the primary shall always evaluate as true, and the pathnames for which the primary is evaluated shall be aggregated into sets. [...] An argument containing only the two characters "
{}" shall be replaced by the set of aggregated pathnames, with each pathname passed as a separate argument to the invoked utility in the same order that it was aggregated. The size of any set of two or more pathnames shall be limited such that execution of the utility does not cause the system's {ARG_MAX} limit to be exceeded.
(emphasis mine).
answered Nov 20 at 10:35
Stephen Kitt
159k24353426
Yes, find -exec ... {} + runs the given command as many times as necessary to accommodate all the arguments without exceeding the maximum argument list size in each invocation. This is specified by POSIX:
If the primary expression is punctuated by a <plus-sign>, the primary shall always evaluate as true, and the pathnames for which the primary is evaluated shall be aggregated into sets. [...] An argument containing only the two characters "
{}" shall be replaced by the set of aggregated pathnames, with each pathname passed as a separate argument to the invoked utility in the same order that it was aggregated. The size of any set of two or more pathnames shall be limited such that execution of the utility does not cause the system's {ARG_MAX} limit to be exceeded.
(emphasis mine).
answered Nov 20 at 10:35
Stephen Kitt
159k24353426
answered Nov 20 at 10:35
Stephen Kitt
159k24353426
answered Nov 20 at 10:35
Stephen Kitt
159k24353426
answered Nov 20 at 10:35
Stephen Kitt
159k24353426
159k24353426
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It does the same thing, i.e. using -exec ... {} + will execute the given utilitity with batches of found pathnames, one or several times. This is what this syntax is for.
answered Nov 20 at 10:36
Kusalananda
118k16222360
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It does the same thing, i.e. using -exec ... {} + will execute the given utilitity with batches of found pathnames, one or several times. This is what this syntax is for.
answered Nov 20 at 10:36
Kusalananda
118k16222360
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
It does the same thing, i.e. using -exec ... {} + will execute the given utilitity with batches of found pathnames, one or several times. This is what this syntax is for.
answered Nov 20 at 10:36
Kusalananda
118k16222360
It does the same thing, i.e. using -exec ... {} + will execute the given utilitity with batches of found pathnames, one or several times. This is what this syntax is for.
answered Nov 20 at 10:36
Kusalananda
118k16222360
edited Nov 20 at 10:54
answered Nov 20 at 10:36
Kusalananda
118k16222360
answered Nov 20 at 10:36
Kusalananda
118k16222360
answered Nov 20 at 10:36
Kusalananda
118k16222360
118k16222360
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482930%2ffind-exec-argument-list-limit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
