Skip to main content

/

Docs

Nightly
v24.5
Log in

Ownership and borrowing

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 outstanding 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:

  • borrowed: 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.

  • inout: 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 of ref arguments as a generalization of the borrowed and inout conventions. ref arguments are an advanced topic, and they're described in more detail in Lifetimes and references.

For example, this function has one argument that's a mutable reference and one that's immutable:

fn add(inout x: Int, borrowed y: Int):
    x += y

fn main():
    var a = 1
    var b = 2
    add(a, b)
    print(a)  # Prints 3
fn add(inout x: Int, borrowed 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 borrowed. In the following sections, we'll explain each of these argument conventions in more detail.

Borrowed arguments (borrowed)​

The borrowed convention is the default for all arguments. But def and fn functions treat borrowed 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 = borrowed_arg
    var my_copy = borrowed_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]

Here the list argument to print_list() is borrowed 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 borrow.

Compared to C++ and Rust​

Mojo's borrowed 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 borrowed 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, and SIMD 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 borrow. 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 (inout)​

If you'd like your function to receive a mutable reference, add the inout keyword in front of the argument name. You can think of inout 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(inout l: List[Int]):
    l.append(5)

var list = List(1, 2, 3, 4)

mutate(list)
print_list(list)
from collections import List

def mutate(inout l: List[Int]):
    l.append(5)

var list = List(1, 2, 3, 4)

mutate(list)
print_list(list)
[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]

Although the code using inout 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 inout must already be mutable. For example, if you try to take a borrowed value and pass it to another function as inout, 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 inout 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(inout 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` inout is invalid since it is also passed
  # borrowed.
  append_twice(my_string, my_string)
  print(my_string)
fn append_twice(inout 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` inout is invalid since it is also passed
  # borrowed.
  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 without making a copy of any heap-allocated data.

  • The caller does not use the ^ transfer sigil, in which case, the value is copied into the function argument and the original variable remains valid. (If the original value is not used again, the compiler may optimize away the copy and transfer the value).

  • 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!"))

For example, the following code works by making a copy of the string, because—although take_text() uses the owned convention—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

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!

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, inout 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, inout list: List[String]):
    list.append(name^)
    # name is uninitialized, nothing to destroy

def consume_string(owned s: String):
    print(s)
    # s is destroyed here

Borrowed versus owned in def functions​

The difference between borrowed 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 borrowed argument always gets an immutable reference or a local copy. You can't transfer a value into a borrowed argument.

  • The owned argument always gets a uniquely owned value, which may have been copied or transferred from the callee. Using owned arguments without the transfer sigil (^) usually results in values being copied.

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 an owned 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 to object type (whereas as fn requires all types be explicitly declared).

  • A def function can treat a borrowed argument as mutable (in which case it receives a mutable copy). An fn function must make this copy explicitly.

For example, these two functions have the exact same behavior.

def def_example(a: Int, inout b: Int, owned c):
    pass

fn fn_example(a_in: Int, inout b: Int, owned c: object):
    var a = a_in
    pass
def def_example(a: Int, inout b: Int, owned c):
    pass

fn fn_example(a_in: Int, inout 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.)

Was this page helpful?