No shit sherlock *massive-facepalm*. Why did you even write that? Was it not crystal clear that discussions (at least without a lot more details) in that direction is undesired waste of everyone's time?
As i wrote: "ATTEMPT surviving broken code /.../ something that is normally undesirable".
PS. Since you like to ASS-U-ME stuff about what is or is not sensible for me to do in my specific case: the code runs in kernel land and some in user land via callbacks - there is no way for the OS to survive or cleanup anything when the program is broken (the process cannot even be terminated because it is in essence part of the kernel at that point - so, you get kernel panic ... BSOD). However i can send a message and initiate a proper teardown and hope the corruption has not already wrecked the OS (the chances happen to be actually pretty good that the OS will remain unharmed [ie. all internal structures in valid state]). An approach that is highly desirable, in my case, while in development phase.
So, no, you could not be more wrong. Don't assume you know the necessary context and details of what i am doing to ignore my PS'note in OP. It is exceedingly unhelpful.