| Message ID | 1330726673-9860-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 17:17, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote: > findutils v4.1.x does not have the `-exec CMD {} +' syntax. We can just as > easily use the `-exec CMD {} \;' syntax. really it's a workaround for old tools that don't adhere to the new POSIX spec > However, it will launch a lot more `rm' processes... indeed, that does suck. you could do this, but it kind of sucks too ... CLEAN_FIND = find "$(BUILDDIR)/" -xdev '(' -name '*.[ao]' -o -name '.*.c.dep' ')' ... @if test -d "$(BUILDDIR)/"; then $(CLEAN_FIND) -exec rm -f {} + 2>/dev/null || \ $(CLEAN_FIND) -exec rm -f {} \; ; \ fi ... -mike
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 17:17, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote: >> However, it will launch a lot more `rm' processes... > > indeed, that does suck. you could do this, but it kind of sucks too ... > CLEAN_FIND = find "$(BUILDDIR)/" -xdev '(' -name '*.[ao]' -o -name > '.*.c.dep' ')' > ... > @if test -d "$(BUILDDIR)/"; then > $(CLEAN_FIND) -exec rm -f {} + 2>/dev/null || \ > $(CLEAN_FIND) -exec rm -f {} \; ; \ > fi I'm fine with that too. It's a little uglier, but it's not quite as bad for systems that have a modern `find', I think. I'll resend with your suggestion if there are no better suggestions. Brian
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 09:52 -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 17:17, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote: > >> However, it will launch a lot more `rm' processes... > > > > indeed, that does suck. you could do this, but it kind of sucks too ... > > CLEAN_FIND = find "$(BUILDDIR)/" -xdev '(' -name '*.[ao]' -o -name > > '.*.c.dep' ')' > > ... > > @if test -d "$(BUILDDIR)/"; then > > $(CLEAN_FIND) -exec rm -f {} + 2>/dev/null || \ > > $(CLEAN_FIND) -exec rm -f {} \; ; \ > > fi > > I'm fine with that too. It's a little uglier, but it's not quite as > bad for systems that have a modern `find', I think. I'll resend with > your suggestion if there are no better suggestions. May be adding a one-line comment like "work-around for ancient find utils not supporting '+'" would also be a good idea?
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote: > May be adding a one-line comment like "work-around for ancient find > utils not supporting '+'" would also be a good idea? Already have something similar in my patch. Will send now. Brian
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 17a1216..0cbbecc 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ endif @if test -d "$(BUILDDIR)/"; then \ find $(BUILDDIR)/ -xdev \ '(' -name '*.[ao]' -o -name '.*.c.dep' ')' \ - -exec rm -f {} + ; \ + -exec rm -f {} \; ; \ fi rm -f $(BUILDDIR)/include/version.h $(MAKE) -C $(TESTS) clean
findutils v4.1.x does not have the `-exec CMD {} +' syntax. We can just as easily use the `-exec CMD {} \;' syntax. However, it will launch a lot more `rm' processes... RHEL 4 still uses findutils 4.1.20 and gets errors like this: $ make clean rm -f /XXX/mtd-utils/*.o /XXX/mtd-utils/ftl_format ... find: missing argument to `-exec' make: *** [clean] Error 1 Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> --- Makefile | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)