Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!smsc.sony.com!dce
From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: Why use find?
Message-ID: <1990Oct8.203940.9247@smsc.sony.com>
Date: 8 Oct 90 20:39:40 GMT
References: <1990Oct5.145825.9454@diku.dk> <1990Oct06.011438.8265@virtech.uucp> <1990Oct7.001518.14216@diku.dk> <106928@convex.convex.com>
Sender: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Reply-To: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Organization: Army Recrucification Center
Lines: 26


In article <106928@convex.convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
|> In article <1990Oct7.001518.14216@diku.dk> kimcm@diku.dk (Kim Christian Madsen) writes:
|> >cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
|> >Maybe not on your system, but on my system (a SYSV) system, find perfoms
|> >a getpwd(3C) each time it enters a directory, and getpwd(3) is by
|> >standard implemented by forking a shell to do a pwd(1) in oorder to

|> What an idiotic way to implement that function.  It's also 
|> stupid of whoever sent out such a hopelessly slow version 
|> of find without optimizing that.  Bitch at your vendor.
|> Are all AT&T versions really this dumb?

No, not all.

SVR4 getcwd (not getpwd, which would mean "get print working directory"?)
works just like the BSD version.

So, bitching to some vendors will get you nothing more than "wait for
SVR4".

-- 
...David Elliott
...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
...(408)944-4073
..."He'll become the Sun.  We must have one you know"  "Oh"