A bit related to my answer https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=202614&curpostid=202635 , should we add variable length signature like for function (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_signature ) to encode the length of variables (in their symbol name, invisible in the language) and increase security against overflow?
I am more thinking of the C language, but it could work for others too.
As an example, "struct { int a,b,c,d; } mystruct;" would have the assembly symbol "mystruct$16".
C pointers and manual memory allocation would not be protected, unless there were a way to encode types like "pointer to 3 words", like:
int *pointer asm ("pointer$12") = malloc(12);
Then it would generate warnings/errors to have another pointer scanning the string and going off by one, or allocate 10 bytes for a pointer of 11 bytes when pointer is "signed". Maybe even runtime link errors if using a library where a structure was smaller.

What would be the problems with that? It looks to me like it should be backward compatible...