[jancsika]

So for interpreted languages with types that are written in C, how is the engine supposed to tell C it already checked all the arg types manually in the interpreter? In other words: it's safe to go ahead and dereference this function and invoke it with these args.

Seems like C technically requires function declarations for every possible signature. That quickly explodes into hundreds or thousands of function declarations in the header and switch statement.

Edit: clarification

[pizlonator]

I’ve thought about how to let folks prove to Fil-C that Fil-C’s checks are obviated by some higher level checks.

It’s a super hard problem! I don’t have a good answer, but I also can’t prove that it’s impossible

[actionfromafar]

Something something compile Fil-C to WASM64?

[pizlonator]

I don’t see how that would help

[pjmlp]

I guess it is the imaginary security that WebAssembly advocates tend to sell, without telling the part that linear memory segments don't have bounds checking within their internals.

[codebje]

If you have an interpreted language, you don't have a C function corresponding to each language function. You have a C interpreter loop with a "current instruction" pointer. When the current interpreted instruction is a call, you check all the things you need to check, push the current IP to a stack, and set the IP to the first instruction of the function.

C's type checker never sees the interpreted language's functions.