back

by uecker·18d ago·view on hn ↗
Regarding the silly point: Fil-C is less of a rock than Safe Rust as everything in C just works.

I am not sure about what you mean by "aborts regularly". After a memory safety issue, I think one usually wants to abort quickly and not do anything else in the program as the program state is confused, so running specific sanitizers in trapping mode together with coding abstractions that avoid unchecked raw pointer access you can write spatially memory safe code in C without a problem. But yes, sometimes you may want to continue running, but this is much harder and needs a careful design of the system anyway, also in other languages.

1 comments
> Regarding the silly point: Fil-C is less of a rock than Safe Rust as everything in C just works.

I'm going to challenge this. Is this from your experience? InvisiCaps, which Fil-C is based on, turns out of bounds accesses into panics. You're saying that turning any "benign" out of bounds into "abort the program" in all the C you? anyone? everyone? uses Just Works?

I'd rather the majority of those failure modes be caught by linters/compiler passes, not runtime safe aborts.

It certainly works in my C programs. And Fil-C demos imply that this also works for a lot of other complex real world programs, i.e. a basic Linux distribution with libreoffice on top... So yes, I would say this just works. I agree that catching this at compile-time is better, and to some degree this also works: https://godbolt.org/z/sse74vK9o

Rust does not offer compile-time guarantee that an out-of-bounds access does not panic either.

Agreed on the last point. I'm very much in favour of developing an analysis that can assert the absence of an abort, I just can't see how an approach like Fil-C can achieve that.

It can guarantee a potential memory corruption event will be caught at runtime, but at that point I have very limited options.

To be clear, I prefer aborting safely to corrupting memory. But I prefer "issue detected at development time" significantly more than both.

I think we agree on this. Fil-C does not ensure this. Showing the absence of run-time errors at compile-time is a hard problem, and the most realistic solution in general is via model checkers which I think would be the ideal solution, but we would need better tooling. Dependently types languages are also interesting.

In the context of existing tooling and C, there is also a lot of potential in using the optimizer to show safety properties. This works quite well to show the absence of signed overflow issues and null-pointer correctness, but still less well for bounds checking, e.g. see here for some preliminary experiments: https://uecker.codeberg.page/2026-05-22.html