Ownership
A challenge you might face when using some programming languages is that you must manually allocate and deallocate memory. When multiple parts of the program need access to the same memory, it becomes difficult to keep track of who "owns" a value and determine when is the right time to deallocate it. If you make a mistake, it can result in a "use-after-free" error, a "double free" error, or a "leaked memory" error, any one of which can be catastrophic.
Mojo helps avoid these errors by ensuring there is only one variable that owns each value at a time, while still allowing you to share references with other functions. When the life span of the owner ends, Mojo destroys the value. Programmers are still responsible for making sure any type that allocates resources (including memory) also deallocates those resources in its destructor. Mojo's ownership system ensures that destructors are called promptly.
On this page, we'll explain the rules that govern this ownership model, and how to specify different argument conventions that define how values are passed into functions.
Ownership summary
The fundamental rules that make Mojo's ownership model work are the following:
- Every value has only one owner at a time.
- When the lifetime of the owner ends, Mojo destroys the value.
- If there are existing references to a value, Mojo extends the lifetime of the owner.
Variables and references
A variable owns its value. A struct owns its fields.
A reference allows you to access a value owned by another variable. A reference can have either mutable access or immutable access to that value.
Mojo references are created when you call a function: function arguments can be passed as mutable or immutable references. A function can also return a reference instead of returning a value.
Argument conventions
In all programming languages, code quality and performance is heavily dependent upon how functions treat argument values. That is, whether a value received by a function is a unique value or a reference, and whether it's mutable or immutable, has a series of consequences that define the readability, performance, and safety of the language.
In Mojo, we want to provide full value semantics by default, which provides consistent and predictable behavior. But as a systems programming language, we also need to offer full control over memory optimizations, which generally requires reference semantics. The trick is to introduce reference semantics in a way that ensures all code is memory safe by tracking the lifetime of every value and destroying each one at the right time (and only once). All of this is made possible in Mojo through the use of argument conventions that ensure every value has only one owner at a time.
An argument convention specifies whether an argument is mutable or immutable, and whether the function owns the value. Each convention is defined by a keyword at the beginning of an argument declaration:
-
read
: The function receives an immutable reference. This means the function can read the original value (it is not a copy), but it cannot mutate (modify) it.def
functions treat this differently, as described below. -
mut
: The function receives a mutable reference. This means the function can read and mutate the original value (it is not a copy). -
owned
: The function takes ownership of a value. This means the function has exclusive ownership of the argument. The caller might choose to transfer ownership of an existing value to this function, but that's not always what happens. The callee might receive a newly-created value, or a copy of an existing value. -
ref
: The function gets a reference with an parametric mutability: that is, the reference can be either mutable or immutable. You can think ofref
arguments as a generalization of theread
andmut
conventions.ref
arguments are an advanced topic, and they're described in more detail in Lifetimes and references. -
out
: A special convention used for theself
argument in constructors and for named results. Anout
argument is uninitialized at the beginning of the function, and must be initialized before the function returns. Althoughout
arguments show up in the argument list, they're never passed in by the caller.
For example, this function has one argument that's a mutable reference and one that's immutable:
fn add(mut x: Int, read y: Int):
x += y
fn main():
var a = 1
var b = 2
add(a, b)
print(a) # Prints 3
fn add(mut x: Int, read y: Int):
x += y
fn main():
var a = 1
var b = 2
add(a, b)
print(a) # Prints 3
You've probably already seen some function arguments that don't declare a
convention. by default, all arguments are read
.
In the following sections, we'll explain each of these argument conventions in
more detail.
Borrowed arguments (read
)
The read
convention is the default for all arguments. But def
and fn
functions treat read
arguments somewhat differently:
-
In a
def
function, if you mutate the value in the body of the function, the function receives a mutable copy of the argument. Otherwise, it receives an immutable reference. This allows you to treat arguments as mutable, but avoid the overhead of making extra copies when they're not needed. -
In an
fn
function, the function always receives an immutable reference. If you want a mutable copy, you can assign it to a local variable:var my_copy = read_arg
var my_copy = read_arg
In both cases, the original value on the caller side can't be changed by the callee.
For example:
from collections import List
def print_list(list: List[Int]):
print(list.__str__())
var list = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
print_list(list)
from collections import List
def print_list(list: List[Int]):
print(list.__str__())
var list = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
print_list(list)
[1, 2, 3, 4]
[1, 2, 3, 4]
Here the list
argument to print_list()
is read and not mutated, so the
print_list()
function gets an immutable reference to the original List
, and
doesn't do any copying.
In general, passing an immutable reference is much more efficient
when handling large or expensive-to-copy values, because the copy constructor
and destructor are not invoked for a read
argument.
Compared to C++ and Rust
Mojo's read argument convention is similar in some ways to passing an
argument by const&
in C++, which also avoids a copy of the value and disables
mutability in the callee. However, the read convention differs from
const&
in C++ in two important ways:
-
The Mojo compiler implements a lifetime checker that ensures that values are not destroyed when there are outstanding references to those values.
-
Small values like
Int
,Float
, andSIMD
are passed directly in machine registers instead of through an extra indirection (this is because they are declared with the@register_passable
decorator). This is a significant performance enhancement when compared to languages like C++ and Rust, and moves this optimization from every call site to a declaration on the type definition.
The major difference between Rust and Mojo is that Mojo does not require a sigil on the caller side to pass by immutable reference. Also, Mojo is more efficient when passing small values, and Rust defaults to moving values instead of passing them around by borrow. These policy and syntax decisions allow Mojo to provide an easier-to-use programming model.
Mutable arguments (mut
)
If you'd like your function to receive a mutable reference, add the mut
keyword in front of the argument name. You can think of mut
like this: it
means any changes to the value inside the function are visible outside the
function.
For example, this mutate()
function updates the original list
value:
from collections import List
def mutate(mut l: List[Int]):
l.append(5)
var list = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
mutate(list)
print_list(list)
from collections import List
def mutate(mut l: List[Int]):
l.append(5)
var list = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
mutate(list)
print_list(list)
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
That behaves like an optimized replacement for this:
from collections import List
def mutate_copy(l: List[Int]) -> List[Int]:
l.append(5)
return l
var list = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
list = mutate_copy(list)
print_list(list)
from collections import List
def mutate_copy(l: List[Int]) -> List[Int]:
l.append(5)
return l
var list = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
list = mutate_copy(list)
print_list(list)
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Although the code using mut
isn't that much shorter, it's more memory
efficient because it does not make a copy of the value.
However, remember that the values passed as mut
must already be mutable.
For example, if you try to take a read
value and pass it to another
function as mut
, you'll get a compiler error because Mojo can't form a
mutable reference from an immutable reference.
Argument exclusivity
Mojo enforces argument exclusivity for mutable references. This means that if
a function receives a mutable reference to a value (such as an mut
argument),
it can't receive any other references to the same value—mutable or immutable.
That is, a mutable reference can't have any other references that alias it.
For example, consider the following code example:
fn append_twice(mut s: String, other: String):
# Mojo knows 's' and 'other' cannot be the same string.
s += other
s += other
fn invalid_access():
var my_string = str("o")
# error: passing `my_string` mut is invalid since it is also passed
# read.
append_twice(my_string, my_string)
print(my_string)
fn append_twice(mut s: String, other: String):
# Mojo knows 's' and 'other' cannot be the same string.
s += other
s += other
fn invalid_access():
var my_string = str("o")
# error: passing `my_string` mut is invalid since it is also passed
# read.
append_twice(my_string, my_string)
print(my_string)
This code is confusing because the user might expect the output to be ooo
,
but since the first addition mutates both s
and other
, the actual output
would be oooo
. Enforcing exclusivity of mutable references not only prevents
coding errors, it also allows the Mojo compiler to optimize code in some cases.
One way to avoid this issue when you do need both a mutable and an immutable reference (or need to pass the same value to two arguments) is to make a copy:
fn valid_access():
var my_string = str("o")
var other_string = str(my_string)
append_twice(my_string, other_string)
print(my_string)
fn valid_access():
var my_string = str("o")
var other_string = str(my_string)
append_twice(my_string, other_string)
print(my_string)
Note that argument exclusivity isn't enforced for register-passable trivial
types (like Int
and Bool
), because they are always passed by copy. When
passing the same value into two Int
arguments, the callee will receive two
copies of the value.
Transfer arguments (owned
and ^
)
And finally, if you'd like your function to receive value ownership, add the
owned
keyword in front of the argument name.
This convention is often combined with use of the postfixed ^
"transfer"
sigil on the variable that is passed into the function, which ends the
lifetime of that variable.
Technically, the owned
keyword does not guarantee that the received value is
the original value—it guarantees only that the function
gets unique ownership of a value. This happens in one of
three ways:
-
The caller passes the argument with the
^
transfer sigil, which ends the lifetime of that variable (the variable becomes uninitialized) and ownership is transferred into the function. -
The caller does not use the
^
transfer sigil, in which case, Mojo copies the value. If the type isn't copyable, this is a compile-time error. -
The caller passes in a newly-created "owned" value, such as a value returned from a function. In this case, no variable owns the value and it can be transferred directly to the callee. For example:
def take(owned s: String):
pass
take(String("A brand-new String!"))def take(owned s: String):
pass
take(String("A brand-new String!"))
The following code works by making a copy of the string, because take_text()
uses the owned
convention, and the caller does not include the transfer sigil:
fn take_text(owned text: String):
text += "!"
print(text)
fn my_function():
var message: String = "Hello"
take_text(message)
print(message)
my_function()
fn take_text(owned text: String):
text += "!"
print(text)
fn my_function():
var message: String = "Hello"
take_text(message)
print(message)
my_function()
Hello!
Hello
Hello!
Hello
However, if you add the ^
transfer sigil when calling take_text()
, the
compiler complains about print(message)
, because at that point, the message
variable is no longer initialized. That is, this version does not compile:
fn my_function():
var message: String = "Hello"
take_text(message^)
print(message) # ERROR: The `message` variable is uninitialized
fn my_function():
var message: String = "Hello"
take_text(message^)
print(message) # ERROR: The `message` variable is uninitialized
This is a critical feature of Mojo's lifetime checker, because it ensures that no
two variables can have ownership of the same value. To fix the error, you must
not use the message
variable after you end its lifetime with the ^
transfer
operator. So here is the corrected code:
fn my_function():
var message: String = "Hello"
take_text(message^)
my_function()
fn my_function():
var message: String = "Hello"
take_text(message^)
my_function()
Hello!
Hello!
Regardless of how it receives the value, when the function declares an argument
as owned
, it can be certain that it has unique mutable access to that value.
Because the value is owned, the value is destroyed when the function
exits—unless the function transfers the value elsewhere.
For example, in the following example, add_to_list()
takes a string and
appends it to the list. Ownership of the string is transferred to the list, so
it's not destroyed when the function exits. On the other hand,
consume_string()
doesn't transfer its owned
value out, so the value is
destroyed at the end of the function.
from collections import List
def add_to_list(owned name: String, mut list: List[String]):
list.append(name^)
# name is uninitialized, nothing to destroy
def consume_string(owned s: String):
print(s)
# s is destroyed here
from collections import List
def add_to_list(owned name: String, mut list: List[String]):
list.append(name^)
# name is uninitialized, nothing to destroy
def consume_string(owned s: String):
print(s)
# s is destroyed here
Transfer implementation details
In Mojo, you shouldn't conflate "ownership transfer" with a "move operation"—these are not strictly the same thing.
There are multiple ways that Mojo can transfer ownership of a value:
-
If a type implements the move constructor,
__moveinit__()
, Mojo may invoke this method if a value of that type is transferred into a function as anowned
argument, and the original variable's lifetime ends at the same point (with or without use of the^
transfer sigil). -
If a type implements the copy constructor,
__copyinit__()
and not__moveinit__()
, Mojo may copy the value and destroy the old value. -
In some cases, Mojo can optimize away the move operation entirely, leaving the value in the same memory location but updating its ownership. In these cases, a value can be transferred without invoking either the
__copyinit__()
or__moveinit__()
constructors.
In order for the owned
convention to work without the transfer
sigil, the value type must be copyable (via __copyinit__()
).
Comparing def
and fn
argument conventions
As mentioned in the section about
functions, def
and fn
functions
are interchangeable, as far as a caller is concerned, and they can both
accomplish the same things. It's only the inside that differs, and Mojo's def
function is essentially just sugaring for the fn
function:
-
A
def
argument without a type annotation defaults toobject
type (whereas asfn
requires all types be explicitly declared). -
A
def
function can treat aread
argument as mutable (in which case it receives a mutable copy). Anfn
function must make this copy explicitly.
For example, these two functions have the exact same behavior.
def def_example(a: Int, mut b: Int, owned c):
pass
fn fn_example(a_in: Int, mut b: Int, owned c: object):
var a = a_in
pass
def def_example(a: Int, mut b: Int, owned c):
pass
fn fn_example(a_in: Int, mut b: Int, owned c: object):
var a = a_in
pass
This shadow copy typically adds no overhead, because small types
like object
are cheap to copy. However, copying large types that allocate heap
storage can be expensive. (For example, copying List
or Dict
types, or
copying large numbers of strings.)
read
versus owned
in def
functions
The difference between read
and owned
in a def
function may be a
little subtle. In both cases, you can end up with a uniquely-owned value that's
a copy of the original value.
-
The
read
argument always gets an immutable reference or a local copy. You can't transfer a value into aread
argument. -
The
owned
argument always gets a uniquely owned value, which may have been copied or transferred from the callee. Usingowned
arguments without the transfer sigil (^
) usually results in values being copied.
Was this page helpful?
Thank you! We'll create more content like this.
Thank you for helping us improve!