find -exec {} + argument list limit












4














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?










share|improve this question



























    4














    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?










    share|improve this question

























      4












      4








      4







      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?










      share|improve this question













      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






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 20 at 10:32









      EmmaV

      1,1091331




      1,1091331






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          9














          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).






          share|improve this answer





























            3














            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.






            share|improve this answer























              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "106"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              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

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              9














              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).






              share|improve this answer


























                9














                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).






                share|improve this answer
























                  9












                  9








                  9






                  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).






                  share|improve this answer












                  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).







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 20 at 10:35









                  Stephen Kitt

                  164k24365444




                  164k24365444

























                      3














                      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.






                      share|improve this answer




























                        3














                        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.






                        share|improve this answer


























                          3












                          3








                          3






                          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.






                          share|improve this answer














                          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.







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited Nov 20 at 10:54

























                          answered Nov 20 at 10:36









                          Kusalananda

                          121k16229372




                          121k16229372






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              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.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              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





















































                              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







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                              ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                              Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?