David Wright <lily...@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes: > On Fri 28 Jul 2017 at 15:16:03 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote: >> Bernhard Kleine <bernhard.kle...@gmx.net> writes: >> >> > Am 28.07.2017 um 00:55 schrieb Guy Stalnaker: >> >> Exited with return code -1073741819 >> > This has come up with the same number IIRC repeatedly. >> >> It's Windows' helpful way to refer to a segfault. Storing something >> more descriptive like "Segmentation violation" for several dozen >> signal-based error messages would consume too much memory needed for >> spyware. 16kB should be enough for anybody. > > I don't understand what the OS would do with these error messages. > On error, the OS returns a code¹ which is handled by the caller. > When I run a program under strace, I can see the OS generating > hundreds of errors every second and they all go unreported except > as a return code. It's up to the application to decide whether to > finally report something, and what that is.
On Posix systems, applications are usually started by the shell and the shell translates return codes corresponding to a process aborted by a signal to a suitable message. Why is Windows incapable of doing the same? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
