GNU find has a -print0 option to terminate filenames with null characters. However, this option is not available in POSIX find.

In the GNU man page for find, under the -print flag, it says:

If you are piping the output of find into another program and there is the faintest possibility that the files which you are searching for might contain a newline, then you should seriously consider using the -print0 option instead of -print.

This suggests to me that -print0 was introduced by GNU to specifically handle file paths with newline characters.

What alternative is available in POSIX for GNU's -print0 option, using either just POSIX find or piping to a second POSIX command?

  • 1
    Generate that output POSIXly is not a problem. That's rather making use of it that would be a problem, given that those NULs make that output non-text and can't be processed by text utilities POSIXly. – Stéphane Chazelas Feb 5 at 20:49
  • 2
    If you need to find a POSIX alternative to -print0, then I assume you will also need to find POSIX alternatives to handling that output? Why not just use -exec to process the pathnames directly? – Kusalananda Feb 5 at 20:54
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? How do I use find when the filename contains spaces? – Thomas Dickey Feb 5 at 21:10
  • @ThomasDickey Perhaps that does answer my question. I was mostly looking to see if POSIX offered any way to do the same thing -print0 does, but if -print0 was designed specifically for the purpose of piping the output to xargs -0 (which is also non-POSIX), then I guess there's no reason to try to find an alternative to -print0 in POSIX. – Shane Bishop Feb 5 at 22:40
  • 1
    To add to my last comment, from reading further, it seems like GNU might have introduced -print0 to handle newline characters in paths (see my quote in my question). This (to me at least) makes it seem less likely that my question is a duplicate of How do I use find when the filename contains spaces?. Even if the answer to that question answers my question, the two questions IMO are different. – Shane Bishop Feb 6 at 15:55

find ... -exec sh -c 'printf "%s\0" "$@"' - {} +

Simply find ... -exec printf '%s\0' {} + may work too, though that will obviously use the standalone printf executable instead of the shell's builtin. I'm not sure if that may have other implications.

  • 1
    Given that the GNU "extension" -print0 is usually used together with the non-portable and non-POSIX xagrs -0, there is no need to emulate -print0. But your idea is correct, -exec + is the solution to avoid the GNU xargs feature. – schily Feb 5 at 19:31
  • Why is there a - before the {}? – Shane Bishop Feb 5 at 19:35
  • @ShaneBishop it's for the $0 variable -- you can set it to anything you want. – user414777 Feb 5 at 19:37
  • 1
    Oh I see now - the - will prevent the first item going to sh from being treated (in a C sense) as argv[0], which means all of the output of find will go to $@ instead of the first one being lost. – Shane Bishop Feb 5 at 19:51
  • 1
    Using things like - or _ is bad practice those as what goes in there is also used by most shells when reporting error message for instance. It's better to use sh for instance, so you get an error message like sh: line 0: printf: write error: Bad file descriptor instead of -: line 0: printf: write error: Bad file descriptor – Stéphane Chazelas Feb 5 at 20:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.