dhenderson at digital-pipe.com
Fri May 13 13:27:21 UTC 2011
On 05/12/2011 04:31 PM, Harald Becker wrote:
> Hallo David!
>> I'm not sure how much it would increase the size of BB, ...
> I can't tell that either, without looking for details of implementation.
>> but I wouldn't think much since the 'ls' command already processes
>> regex's. Something like this in bash/perl would take a few lines at best
> In bash/perl ... you can't compare C code increasing only based on
> simplicity of functionality in script languages like bash/perl ... I
> expect the increasing of code size not to be so minimalistic ... that
> is, we need to ask if required.
But isn't some/most of the code required to process this task already
part of the busybox binary (hence part of it's reduction in size over
full blown utilities)?
>> - although I'm not a C or C++ programmer, ...
> ... and that's the reason why.
And that's the reason it was included. :)
>> I just thought it would be a nice addition to make for more complex
>> searches without relying on another binary. :)
> Another binary? ... find is an applet of busybox, and even with the
> restricted version of Busybox you get a massive selection of
> functionality, especially for searches (most likely cases where you use
> "ls -1") ... without another binary, as it is already part of Busybox
> (all those applets share the same code and usually get not duplicated
> into memory).
opps - applet is what I meant :) I've been working on other projects too
and busybox is the only one where applet is the appropriate term.
> ... if a need for extension of search selection arises, it would
> probably be wise to extend the functionality of find. (IMHO)
Again, since they share the same code base, wouldn't it be trivial to
add that bit of code to 'ls'?
More information about the busybox