in reply to Re^5: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl
in thread Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl

I remembered working on a Sun some time ago where a pipe with xargs gave problems with too many arguments - but I might have dreamt it.

OT: I'm quite happy of my wrong answer. It taught me that I had wrong expectations about xargs, and that it will work fine in my Linux box. And others will possibly benefit :)

Flavio
perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf

Don't fool yourself.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl
by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Jan 05, 2006 at 22:20 UTC
    I remembered working on a Sun some time ago where a pipe with xargs gave problems with too many arguments - but I might have dreamt it.
    If so, then it would be a bug, as that would mean its xargs would not be POSIX compliant. I can't recall ever run into this problem using Solaris (but that doesn't prove anything - my memory isn't perfect). Here's the relevant quote from the POSIX docs: 
    The generated command line length shall be the sum of the size in byte
+s of the utility name and
each argument treated as strings, including a null byte terminator for
+ each of these strings. The
xargs utility shall limit the command line length such that when the c
+ommand line is invoked,
the combined argument and environment lists (see the exec family of fu
+nctions in the System
Interfaces volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001) shall not exceed {ARG_MAX}-
+2 048 bytes. Within
this constraint, if neither the -n nor the -s option is specified, the
+ default command line length
shall be at least {LINE_MAX}.

    [download]
    Perl --((8:>*

    Edited by planetscape - replaced pre with code tags

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Meditations