| Previous | Next |
| ERROR_FILE_SYSTEM_LIMITATION | ERROR_ACPI_ERROR |
ERROR_ASSERTION_FAILURE
What ERROR_ASSERTION_FAILURE means
An assertion represents an invariant the programmer expected to be true. This code therefore usually indicates a software defect, corrupted state, or an unsupported execution path rather than bad user input.
Where it appears
- debug or checked builds of a driver, service, or native library
- defensive runtime checks left enabled in production
- exception translation that converts an assertion into a Win32 status
Likely causes
- incorrect call ordering or an impossible state becoming reachable
- memory corruption before the assertion site
- mismatched component versions or ABI assumptions
- race conditions that violate ownership or lifetime rules
Evidence to collect
- the assertion expression, source file, and line number
- full stack trace and loaded-module versions
- the earliest warning or error before the assertion
- input data and concurrency context needed to reproduce the state
How to respond
Preserve the first dump and avoid blindly continuing, because the process may already be inconsistent. Developers should fix the violated invariant or the path that reached it; operators should update or roll back the offending component and provide a reproducible trace.
Diagnostic interpretation
For this particular status, the decisive evidence is the assertion expression, source file, and line number, full stack trace and loaded-module versions. Those details separate the documented condition from unrelated failures that happen to occur nearby.
Record the numeric code together with the symbolic name ERROR_ASSERTION_FAILURE, the API or subsystem that produced it, and the first preceding failure. A later cleanup occurrence may describe a consequence instead of the initiating defect.
Example
A diagnostic trace records this result after an operation changes subsystem state. The result investigation should follow the first state-changing call, validate its resulting state, and classify later cleanup messages as secondary evidence.
Implementation guidance
Code handling this result should distinguish a terminal failure from a warning, progress indication, or request to repeat after a defined state change. When handling it, preserve handles and output fields only where the originating API explicitly keeps them valid. The path needs bounded retries and cleanup that tolerates partial initialization.
Validation after remediation
Repeat one controlled operation that previously produced this result. Verify both disappearance of the status and completion of the specific state transition described above. Adjacent messages around it must also be reviewed so a fallback is not mistaken for a complete repair.
References
Looking for a different code? Search another status or error code.