On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Dave Korn wrote:

> On 23 March 2006 20:25, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> >> On 23 March 2006 18:49, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>
> >>> You should really be asking the suppliers of mmv, but error 0xc0000005
> >>> ("the application could not be initialized properly")
> >>
> >>   ITYM "0xC0000005: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION".  It can indeed a) be
> >> caused by bad perms or b) lead to the application failing to initialize
> >> properly, but the message you quoted above is IIRC 0xC0000142, isn't it?
> >
> > No, I did mean 0xC0000005, though I misremembered the exact message (which
> > is "The application failed to initialize properly") -- see, for example
> > <http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/11331107.html>.
> >     Igor
>
>
>   Last thing I remember, it was Microsoft, not Adobe, who get to define the
> meanings of NTSTATUS values.  Please refer to the DDK docs, or indeed to the
> canonical header file ntstatus.h
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/include/w32api/ddk> grep 'C0000005' ntstatus.h
> #define STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION ((NTSTATUS)0xC0000005L)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/include/w32api/ddk> grep 'C0000142' ntstatus.h
> #define STATUS_DLL_INIT_FAILED ((NTSTATUS)0xC0000142L)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/include/w32api/ddk>

I believe I was talking about the actual message produced, not the meaning
of the error code.  The message *is* shown by the Microsoft default error
handler, and that's what the Adobe support link refers to (and I've seen
it on my machine as well, for apps unrelated to Adobe).  You're obviously
correct in that the code actually means "access violation".
        Igor
-- 
                                http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_            [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_            Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'           old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL     a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Reply via email to