I.e. either intentionally (e.g. tripping an assertion failure), or accidentally due to some logic-failure in exception/error-handling, the process ends up calling the exit(3) syscall without first having run its libc at_exit finalizers that a clean exit(2) would run; or, at a slightly higher runtime abstraction level, the process calls exit(2) or returns from main(), without having run through the appropriate RAII destructors (in C++/Rust), or gracefully signalled will-shutdown to managed threads to allow them to run terminating-state code (in Java/Go/Erlang/Win32/etc), or etc.

This kind of "hard abort" often truncates logging output at the point of abort; leaves TCP connections hanging open; leaves lockfiles around on disk; and has the potential to corrupt any data files that were being written to. Basically, it results in the process not executing "should always execute" code to clean up after itself.

So, although the OS kernel/scheduler thinks everything went fine, and that it didn't have to step in to forcibly terminate the process's lifecycle (though it did very likely observe a nonzero process exit code), I think most people would still generally call this type of abort a "crash." The process's runtime got into an invalid/broken state and stopped cleaning up, even if the process itself didn't violate any protection rules / resource limits / etc.

I think that that's by far the dominant usage of crash. It would surprise me if someone used the word crash but intended to exclude panics, etc.