Grep and -L 1

[HopeLessGuy]

I have a question. In Linux, grep -L would show the filenames of all files that didn't have the string I was searching for. Does SunOS have an equivilent to this? The closest I can see is -v, but that shows the entire body excluding the string and doesn't show the filenames(s).

Also, is there a method for grep to tell you which files contain a certain number of entries? For example, grep -c "String" *.boom would list how man lines that String is found in. Does grep have the flexibility to where I can set the number of entries that should be found(Or less) and have it output the filenames?

 

[bigdaddy01]

Not sure about the first question. However the second question you could try
#grep -c "String" *.boom |wc -l

#
wc is word count,-l is line count, also I think fgrep will show you the file name of the string you are searching for.

P.

 

[Annihilannic]

None of the standard Solaris greps have that functionality, however you can wrap it in a little script for a similar effect:

[tt]for f in *
do
if ! grep yoursearchstring $f > /dev/null
then
echo $f
fi
done [/tt]

This works because grep returns 1 if it doesn't find a matching string in the file, or 0 if it does.

Similarly to do the second you could:

[tt]grep -c searchstring * | nawk -F: '$2 >= 5 { print $1 }'[/tt]

...where 5 is the minimum number of matches you want.

Annihilannic.

 

[HopeLessGuy]

Thank you very much Annihilannic and bigdaddy01. Those examples were exactly what I had in mind. Again, thank you!!

 

[HopeLessGuy]

One more thing, is there a way to search for more than one string, where as the condition must be met or else return false?

I've read using '|' - grep "Yo|Me" * is how to search for multiple strings...

But it seems to act as an OR operator and not AND (I've tried & and &&). Is there a argument that makes it return both strings or else return false? What I'm trying to do is make grep search for 2+ strings and if that returns true, it will search it for other strings to better determine the fix. But it mainly depends on the beginning statement which I can't to function.

 

[HopeLessGuy]

Nevermind, found out already. Nothing bad about trial and error

 

[Annihilannic]

How did you do it? As far as I know there is no "and" operator for (e)grep. In the past I have had to use two greps in the pipeline, or in your example something like egrep 'Yo.*Me|Me.*Yo'

Annihilannic.

 

[HopeLessGuy]

I just found a way around it, probably very inefficient and time consuming But I just used an 'IF' statement, since for my case I needed to find files that contained both strings. As a result, I used a nested 'IF' statement.

if grep "stringhere" *.rcf *.txt #First String
then
if grep "stringhere" *.rcf *.txt #Second String
then
#SolutionCodeHere
else
#EscapeCode
fi
else
#EscapeCode
fi

That's the best I could think of to find 2+ strings in one file and get either a 0 or 1 response. That statment can go on and on searching for how many strings you have, but I think it's probably the most inefficient and slow. But it works

Oh yeah, got a question about this function you helped me with

grep -c searchstring * | nawk -F: '$2 >= 5 { print $1 }'

Is there a way I can manipulate the output? Because it'll print the file extensions as well, but I just want the filename (Filename is important, since it resolves to names). I tried doing -

grep -c searchstring * | nawk -F: '$2 >= 5 { print ${1%.txt|.doc} }'

As well as any other variations including, "${1%.txt|.doc} }', but awk doesn't seem to like it. I just want to eliminate the file extensions. I'm trying to maintain the name, but eliminate the .txt and .doc

 

[Annihilannic]

This should do it.

[tt]grep -c searchstring * | nawk -F: '$2 >= 5 { sub("\.(doc|txt)$","",$1) ; print $1 }'[/tt]

The method you were using is a Korn shell feature, however the AWK script between the single apostrophes is not actually interpreted by the shell.

The sub() function is documented on the nawk man page.

Annihilannic.

 

[HopeLessGuy]

Thank you Annihilannic! That code has helped me, again thanks for helping!! Back to more scripting I go