[bug #55095] please add "--count" to find

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #55095 (project findutils): I'm also getting differences for $HOME between 'find' and 'du', but this is because 'du' doesn't output duplicate files, i.e., hardlinks. Well, this is quite unrelated to requesting -count as new find action. __

[bug #55095] please add "--count" to find

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #55095 (project findutils): The "find -printf ." is surely an improvement, but using it on my $HOME it still writes appr 300K on stdout to be read by wc, instead of "302221". ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #55095] please add "--count" to find

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #55095 (project findutils): What do you refer to? I mean it's quite obvious that the implicit -print will output 2 lines for a file with a newline in its name. That's why I'd use "-printf ." instead (no fiddling with the names at all). __

[bug #55095] please add "--count" to find

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #55095 (project findutils): % cd /tmp % rm -f sample* % touch "sample > 42" % find sample* | wc -l 2 ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #55095] please add "--count" to find

Update of bug #55095 (project findutils): Severity: 3 - Normal => 1 - Wish ___ Follow-up Comment #4: It is _not_ as easy as 'i++', what about the interference with other options, e.g.: $ find

[bug #55095] please add "--count" to find

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #55095 (project findutils): I think you missed the "do it well" part. Using --print to feed the pipe you create a terrible overhead, compared to an internal i++. find has to obtain the file names and call write to copy each one to stdout. Not to mention that the shell has