The challenge of building a Foreign Function Interface

Published on:

In Inko 0.3.0 we introduced a Foreign Function Interface for interfacing with C. In this article we'll take a look at the challenges faced when building a Foreign Function Interface.

A Foreign Function Interface (FFI) is a mechanism for one programming language to make use of another programming language, usually C. Most programming languages out there offer such an interface, such as (but not limited to): Python, Ruby, Rust, Lua, and Inko itself. Such an interface is necessary as there is a lot of software written in C, and rewriting all that in a different programming language is not doable.

To provide an FFI, most programming languages will use one (or sometimes both) of the following approaches:

  1. By allowing developers to write extensions in C, which are then loaded into the program.
  2. By using libffi: a software library that allows you to call C functions, using information defined at run time instead of at compile time.

Both of these approaches have their benefits and drawbacks. C extensions usually have little overhead, though this may vary between programming languages. A drawback of this approach is that you'll have to write your code in C, which isn't exactly the easiest language to deal with.

Using libffi means you can write all your code in the target language, such as Ruby. This comes at the cost of overhead, as some extra work might be necessary to convert types and execute function calls. For example, a Ruby integer has to be converted to an unsigned int in C, including some validation to make sure the integer would not overflow. A Just-in-time (JIT) compiler might be able to optimise this away, but at its core the use of libffi does introduce some overhead.

Type conversion and validation

Regardless of what approach for an FFI we take, we may need to convert some types of our host language (e.g. Ruby) to types in the target language (e.g. C). The most straightforward example would be the conversion of integral types. In a language that has different types for integers of different sizes, such as most compiled languages, this is less of an issue.

For a language with only a single (often arbitrary precision) integer type (such as Ruby and Python) things will get more tricky. In such a language you can not pass your integer to C, as its value may not be compatible with the expected type. For example, passing the number 300 to a C char is likely to break the program. This means some form of runtime validation and conversion might be necessary. You could decide to not validate the value and instead cast it to the target type, requiring developers to make sure they are passing the right value.

For more complex types such as structures or strings, things may get more tricky. For example, in C a string is a sequence of bytes that ends with a NULL byte, but in many languages it's a more complex type. In Rust the String type is a structure consisting out of at least two fields:

  1. A pointer to the bytes of the string, without a NULL byte.
  2. A single word (usize in Rust) that stores the number of bytes in the string.

Such complex types can not be converted to a C char*, nor can we pass the pointer to the string as it is not NULL terminated. Rust's approach to this problem is to provide separate types for C strings: CStr and CString. It is then up to the programmer to somehow construct these types, which may require copying the memory of the source string so the NULL byte can be added to it.

In Inko we instead use a custom string structure called ImmutableString (strings are immutable in Inko). Like Rust's String type, ImmutableString stores the number of bytes separate from the pointer to the bytes. Unlike the String type, it also adds a NULL byte at the end of every string. This NULL byte is ignored by all string operations. When passing an ImmutableString to C, we simply take the pointer to the underlying bytes and pass that to C. This removes the need for copying the entire string, at the cost of having to store one extra byte of memory to store the NULL byte.

How a language decides to handle type conversion and validation can have a big impact on performance, and as such a language may decide to not perform any validation at all. Inko is one such language: when you pass an integer type to C, Inko will cast it to the appropriate C type without performing any validation. For integers this will result in the values wrapping around, which may result in a program misbehaving. This approach means that well written programs will not suffer from the overhead of having to validate every integer passed to C.


The approach to multitasking employed by a programming language can affect the implementation of an FFI. Most languages use cooperative multitasking, meaning the language will not suspend a task; unless the task requests for this to happen. In a language using pre-emptive multitasking, a task might be suspended by the language for a variety of reasons. Examples of such languages are Erlang and Inko.

Pre-emptive languages have some sort of scheduler that decides what OS thread a task runs on, and the language may decide to move the task to a different OS thread at some point. This poses a problem when interfacing with C: when calling into C, the OS thread the task runs on will be unable to perform other work until the C call finishes. If the pre-emptive language uses a fixed number of OS threads to perform its work (known as "M:N scheduling"), this can result in all OS threads being used for blocking C calls, leaving no room for other tasks to run.

Another problem for pre-emptive languages is thread-local storage. A C function might require the presence of data stored in thread-local storage. If a task can be moved across OS threads, this could result in the C function failing. To prevent this from happening, your language would have to offer some way of pinning a task to an OS thread. In Inko you can do this by using the method pinned from the std::process module:

import std::process

process.pinned {
  # Everything inside this closure will always execute on the same OS thread,
  # and no other tasks can be executed on that OS thread.

Programmers would then have to use this method in the appropriate places whenever interfacing with C code that uses thread-local storage.

Most cooperative languages run tasks on their own OS threads, meaning they do not have to deal with these problems. This is referred to as "1:1 scheduling". Instead, they will have their own problems to deal with. Depending on the underlying platform a OS process may only be able to start a limited number of OS threads, and starting OS threads might be expensive.

For Inko we experimented with moving to a model where every Inko process is mapped directly to an OS thread, instead of processes running on a fixed pool of OS threads. While using a 1:1 scheduler allowed us to remove quite a bit of code (around 2000 lines), in the few (limited) tests we ran the performance was actually worse compared to using an M:N scheduler. It also didn't simplify interfacing with C as much as we hoped for. As a result, we decided to keep the M:N scheduler for the time being.

C callbacks

Various C libraries make use of callbacks: C functions that are called at some later point. Various GUI libraries make heavy use of callbacks, but they are also used by other libraries such as libuv. These libraries usually use some kind of event loop that runs in a single OS thread, which is usually started using a C call that doesn't return until the program terminates.

This setup poses a problem for pre-emptive languages. If we want to execute the callback in the context of the task that registered it, we need to somehow make sure we don't start unwinding the call stack too far when the callback finishes.

To illustrate this, let's say we have task A which sets up a callback, then starts the event loop using a blocking C call. Now imagine the call stack would be as follows:


When the callback gets executed, the call stack would turn into the following:


When returning from the callback (denoted as callback()), we need to make sure to not also start returning from event_loop(), bar(), and foo(), as doing so could break the program. How exactly this would be handled and how complicated this would be depends on the implementation of the programming languages.

In case of Inko, this is difficult enough to deal with that C callbacks simply are not supported at this time. Due to the implementation of the virtual machine, supporting C callbacks would require some sort of flag to be stored for every stack frame. This flag could then be used to determine if we have to keep unwinding after a return, or if we should only unwind from the most recent call frame. This however requires extra memory and bookkeeping, even when most of the time the flag would never be used.

If a language uses garbage collection, C callbacks pose another problem: as long as the C callback is registered, any objects visible to the callback need to be kept around. If the garbage collector is not aware of a C callback capturing any objects, it may end up garbage collecting them. This means that either the garbage collector needs to somehow have access to the callback so it can be scanned for objects, or the objects visible to the callback need to be pinned somehow. This isn't just limited to C callbacks: the moment an object is stored in memory managed by C, the garbage collector somehow has to be made aware of this. Regardless of the solution a language may decide to use, it's likely to prove quite difficult.

C callbacks may seem like they are easy to support, but depending on the type of language and its implementation, it may prove to be quite the challenge. Add garbage collection to the mix, and it might end up being difficult to support C callbacks.

C standard library differences

Different operating systems and compilers may implement the C standard library (libc) in slightly different ways. For example, for error handling many functions use the errno thread-local variable. In many implementations errno isn't actually a variable, instead it's a macro. For glibc errno is defined as follows:

extern int *__errno_location (void) __THROW __attribute_const__;
# define errno (*__errno_location ())

Other implementations of libc may decide to use different names for the __errno_location function, such as Mac OS which uses the name __error.

This isn't just limited to the errno variable. For some libc implementations, certain structures may have additional fields. One such example is the tm structure used by functions such as localtime(), which in glibc contains some additional fields.

If a language wishes to provide bindings to libc, it needs to take care of all these differences. This in turn could require a substantial amount of work. An alternative would be to add bindings to libc in a third-party library, but this may result in many libraries trying to provide libc bindings at varying levels of completeness.

Type safety

Languages may wish to provide some form of type safety when using an FFI. For dynamically typed languages this would require some form of runtime validation, while statically typed languages may be able to perform this at compile time. Compile time validation would likely require dedicated syntax for binding to external code, to make it easier for the compiler to understand things. For example, in Rust you can bind to a C function using an extern block:

use std::ffi::c_void;

extern "C" {
    fn malloc(amount: usize) -> *mut c_void


This allows the Rust compiler to then verify calls to malloc() as if it were defined as a regular Rust function.

For more dynamic languages this might be difficult. In Ruby for example you would write the following to bind malloc() to the language:

require 'fiddle'

# This dynamically loads libc.
libc = Fiddle.dlopen('')

malloc = Fiddle::Function
  .new(libc['malloc'], [Fiddle::TYPE_SIZE_T], Fiddle::TYPE_VOIDP)

# This is the equivalent of `malloc(4)` in C.

If for a moment we were to assume Ruby was statically typed, the compiler would not have sufficient information to determine how exactly malloc() can be used. To allow validating of calls to malloc(), the compiler would have to have special understanding of how binds a function. It would then also have to know that Fiddle::TYPE_SIZE_T maps to the C size_t type, and that Fiddle::TYPE_VOIDP maps to the C void* type. For a language as dynamic as Ruby this would likely be impossible to implement in a reliable way.

Inko currently suffers from the same problem, as the FFI works in a similar way. Inko's equivalent of the above example would be the following:

import std::ffi::Library
import std::ffi::types

# This dynamically loads libc.
let libc =[''])

let malloc = libc.function('malloc', [types.size_t], types.pointer)

# This is the equivalent of `malloc(4)` in C.

Because defining and binding of the C function happens at runtime, the Inko compiler has no way verifying calls to malloc(). This means that'foo') would not result in any compile time errors, instead producing a runtime error.

If a language wishes to provide type safety for its FFI, a special syntax for binding C to the language will most likely be required. This syntax would have to also support some form of conditionals, allowing the developer to handle differences between different library implementations and operating systems. Adding such syntax may complicate the language more, both for the maintainers and its users. Maintainers will have to extend the compiler to make use of this syntax, and developers need to learn and remember it. This might not be a problem for all languages, but it is definitely something one should take into account when designing an FFI.

Loading of libraries

When building an FFI, there are two ways one could load a third-party library into their program:

  1. Statically or dynamically linking the library at compile time.
  2. Dynamically loading the library at runtime using dlopen() or an equivalent routine.

Static and/or dynamically linking the library is a popular technique for compiled languages, while dynamically loading the library is a popular choice for interpreted languages. Ruby and Python both use dynamic loading for example.

Both approaches come with their own benefits and drawbacks. Loading a library at compile time is something that is possible on pretty much every platform out there, but it doesn't work for interpreted languages. Dynamic loading on the other hand works for both compiled and interpreted languages, but might not be available on all platforms. For example, musl doesn't support dynamic loading of library when linked statically, and defines dlopen() as a stub:

#include <dlfcn.h>
#include "dynlink.h"

static void *stub_dlopen(const char *file, int mode)
	__dl_seterr("Dynamic loading not supported");
	return 0;

weak_alias(stub_dlopen, dlopen);

For Inko this proved quite problematic. Up until we added support for FFI, we provided VM builds that linked to musl, making them more portable. Unfortunately, with the introducing of the FFI we had to stop providing these builds as they would not be able to support the FFI.

Languages wishing to use dynamic loading need to take into account that dlopen() or similar routines may not be available depending on what implementation of libc is being used. This will likely force them to dynamically link to the libc implementation, resulting in an executable that might not work across different versions of the libc implementation.

The design of the FFI itself

The design of the FFI can be a challenge as well. A good FFI is implemented in such a way that it looks somewhat like C, making it more natural and easier to build bindings. One approach some FFIs take is to process C header files and generate the necessary bindings based on these headers. This removes the need for developers to manually write their bindings, at the cost of potentially being less flexible. This does come at the cost of having to parse C header files, and unfortunately the C syntax is rather complex. This can get even worse if you also want to support parsing C++ header files.

For Inko we went with an API similar to the one provided by Ruby, which in turn is fairly similar to the APIs provided by other languages. Generating bindings based on C headers is something we believe is best handled by a third-party library, reducing the amount of dependencies that may be necessary to use the language.


Building an FFI for C is no easy task. There are many challenges to overcome, and the implementation of a language and the corresponding FFI may result in certain functionality not being available. A well designed FFI may be straightforward to use, but it's implementation is likely far from straightforward.

Those interested in providing an FFI for their own language may find Inko's implementation of use. Inko uses libffi, and the FFI layer (excluding the various VM instructions that expose the FFI) is about 780 lines of Rust.