Unfinished CryptoNight OpenCL (AMD) miner

[3x2]

Still in development?

Yes, working on finding a bug. After that's done, finishing it up shouldn't be too hard.

OK, keep up the good work 

[yang5034]

nice work,thank you .wating for the open souce miner.

[number_cruncher]

Had some trouble compiling. I cloned off git. I'm afraid my Linux experience is limited to "well it didn't work, looks like i'm screwed."

Not sure if I messed something up, but let me know if I can be any help.
Ubuntu 13.10
AMD Drivers amd-catalyst-13.11-beta V9.4-linux-x86.x86_64

miner1@miner1:~/opencl-cryptonight$ ./autogen.sh
miner1@miner1:~/opencl-cryptonight$ ./configure
checking build system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking host system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking target system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p
checking for gawk... gawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
checking whether make supports nested variables... yes
checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles... no
checking for style of include used by make... GNU
checking for gcc... gcc
checking whether the C compiler works... yes
checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
checking for suffix of executables...
checking whether we are cross compiling... no
checking for suffix of object files... o
checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes
checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes
checking for gcc option to accept ISO C89... none needed
checking dependency style of gcc... gcc3
checking for gcc option to accept ISO C99... -std=gnu99
checking how to run the C preprocessor... gcc -std=gnu99 -E
checking for grep that handles long lines and -e... /bin/grep
checking for egrep... /bin/grep -E
checking whether gcc -std=gnu99 needs -traditional... no
checking whether gcc -std=gnu99 and cc understand -c and -o together... yes
checking dependency style of gcc -std=gnu99... gcc3
checking for ranlib... ranlib
checking for ANSI C header files... yes
checking for sys/types.h... yes
checking for sys/stat.h... yes
checking for stdlib.h... yes
checking for string.h... yes
checking for memory.h... yes
checking for strings.h... yes
checking for inttypes.h... yes
checking for stdint.h... yes
checking for unistd.h... yes
checking sys/endian.h usability... no
checking sys/endian.h presence... no
checking for sys/endian.h... no
checking sys/param.h usability... yes
checking sys/param.h presence... yes
checking for sys/param.h... yes
checking syslog.h usability... yes
checking syslog.h presence... yes
checking for syslog.h... yes
checking for sys/sysctl.h... yes
checking whether be32dec is declared... no
checking whether le32dec is declared... no
checking whether be32enc is declared... no
checking whether le32enc is declared... no
checking for size_t... yes
checking for working alloca.h... yes
checking for alloca... yes
checking for getopt_long... yes
checking whether we can compile AVX code... yes
checking whether we can compile XOP code... yes
checking whether we can compile AVX2 code... yes
checking for json_loads in -ljansson... no
checking for pthread_create in -lpthread... yes
checking for OPENSSL_init in -lcrypto... yes
checking for gawk... (cached) gawk
checking for curl-config... /usr/bin/curl-config
checking for the version of libcurl... 7.32.0
checking for libcurl >= version 7.15.2... yes
checking whether libcurl is usable... yes
checking for curl_free... yes
checking that generated files are newer than configure... done
configure: creating ./config.status
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: creating compat/Makefile
config.status: creating compat/jansson/Makefile
config.status: creating cpuminer-config.h
config.status: executing depfiles commands
miner1@miner1:~/opencl-cryptonight$ make
make  all-recursive
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight'
Making all in compat
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight/compat'
Making all in jansson
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight/compat/jansson'
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..      -MT dump.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/dump.Tpo -c -o dump.o dump.c
mv -f .deps/dump.Tpo .deps/dump.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..      -MT hashtable.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/hashtable.Tpo -c -o hashtable.o hashtable.c
mv -f .deps/hashtable.Tpo .deps/hashtable.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..      -MT load.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/load.Tpo -c -o load.o load.c
mv -f .deps/load.Tpo .deps/load.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..      -MT strbuffer.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/strbuffer.Tpo -c -o strbuffer.o strbuffer.c
mv -f .deps/strbuffer.Tpo .deps/strbuffer.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..      -MT utf.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/utf.Tpo -c -o utf.o utf.c
mv -f .deps/utf.Tpo .deps/utf.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..      -MT value.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/value.Tpo -c -o value.o value.c
mv -f .deps/value.Tpo .deps/value.Po
rm -f libjansson.a
ar cru libjansson.a dump.o hashtable.o load.o strbuffer.o utf.o value.o
ranlib libjansson.a
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight/compat/jansson'
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight/compat'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `all-am'.
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight/compat'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight/compat'
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight'
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.  -pthread -I./compat/jansson   -ggdb -g3 -maes   -MT minerd-cpu-miner.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/minerd-cpu-miner.Tpo -c -o minerd-cpu-miner.o `test -f 'cpu-miner.c' || echo './'`cpu-miner.c
mv -f .deps/minerd-cpu-miner.Tpo .deps/minerd-cpu-miner.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.  -pthread -I./compat/jansson   -ggdb -g3 -maes   -MT minerd-util.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/minerd-util.Tpo -c -o minerd-util.o `test -f 'util.c' || echo './'`util.c
mv -f .deps/minerd-util.Tpo .deps/minerd-util.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.  -pthread -I./compat/jansson   -ggdb -g3 -maes   -MT minerd-cryptonight_common.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/minerd-cryptonight_common.Tpo -c -o minerd-cryptonight_common.o `test -f 'cryptonight_common.c' || echo './'`cryptonight_common.c
mv -f .deps/minerd-cryptonight_common.Tpo .deps/minerd-cryptonight_common.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.  -pthread -I./compat/jansson   -ggdb -g3 -maes   -MT minerd-cryptonight_opencl.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/minerd-cryptonight_opencl.Tpo -c -o minerd-cryptonight_opencl.o `test -f 'cryptonight_opencl.c' || echo './'`cryptonight_opencl.c
cryptonight_opencl.c:2:23: fatal error: CL/opencl.h: No such file or directory
 #include <CL/opencl.h>
                       ^
compilation terminated.
make[2]: *** [minerd-cryptonight_opencl.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/miner1/opencl-cryptonight'
make: *** [all] Error 2

[teknohog]

Compiled and got this upon running:

Code:

clBuildProgram() returned -11!
"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 366: error: invalid type conversion
                AES256Round((uint *)c, (ulong *)&long_state[aindx],
                (uint *)a);
                                       ^

"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 368: error: invalid type conversion
                CopyBlock((ulong *)&long_state[aindx], b);
                          ^

"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 372: error: invalid type conversion
                CopyBlock(b2, (ulong *)&long_state[cindx]);
                              ^

"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 377: error: invalid type conversion
                CopyBlock((ulong *)&long_state[cindx], a);
                          ^

"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 325: warning: variable "gid" was declared
but never
          referenced
        __private uint i, j, gid, aeskey1[64], aeskey2[64];
                             ^

4 errors detected in the compilation of "/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl".

Frontend phase failed compilation.

Looks like pretty minor errors, but I have no time to hack on this now.

[teknohog]

Code:

...
4 errors detected in the compilation of "/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl".

Frontend phase failed compilation.

Looks like pretty minor errors, but I have no time to hack on this now.

I tested on an Nvidia card, so AMD might be a little pickier.

Yup, this was on AMD. I'll have a look at those type conversions at some point.

[teknohog]

Code:

clBuildProgram() returned -11!
"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 366: error: invalid type conversion
                AES256Round((uint *)c, (ulong *)&long_state[aindx],
                (uint *)a);
                                       ^

"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 368: error: invalid type conversion
                CopyBlock((ulong *)&long_state[aindx], b);
                          ^

"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 372: error: invalid type conversion
                CopyBlock(b2, (ulong *)&long_state[cindx]);
                              ^

"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 377: error: invalid type conversion
                CopyBlock((ulong *)&long_state[cindx], a);
                          ^

"/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl", line 325: warning: variable "gid" was declared
but never
          referenced
        __private uint i, j, gid, aeskey1[64], aeskey2[64];
                             ^

4 errors detected in the compilation of "/tmp/OCL25634T8.cl".

Frontend phase failed compilation.

Looks like pretty minor errors, but I have no time to hack on this now.

I removed all those (ulong *)'s as I figured there's no need for type conversion, they're already defined with that type. It compiles and runs on my AMD system, clearly hashing something.

Unfortunately, my first GPU is a very slow, integrated one, so I'd like a way to force the second device...

Edit: one obvious compile issue was fixed by adding -std=gnu99 to CFLAGS. The compiler even suggest either that or -std=c99, but it also hints at GNU extensions, and indeed only the gnu99 worked. (This is probably included by default, but got messed by custom flags :-j)

[Crypto_EX]

can we expect to mine with this without being forced to pay that stupid 5% miner fee that claymore miner has ... also the way he forces us makes feel that this guy can't really be trusted ...

[Crypto_EX]

can we expect to mine with this without being forced to pay that stupid 5% miner fee that claymore miner has ... also the way he forces us makes feel that this guy can't really be trusted ...

Of course - it's open source. But while I don't agree with the amount of his fee, I think devs should be paid - and it's not like more than 2-3% of people donate.

i would have donated but the way he forces us makes me not wanna trust him .... and he is being very rude about it because he knows that his closed source software is the only one available to AMD cards also his software is under developed it doesn't even show cards temps how lazy is that and still forcing us to pay him for that lousy job of his just because he knows that we have no other option 

[Crypto_EX]

can we expect to mine with this without being forced to pay that stupid 5% miner fee that claymore miner has ... also the way he forces us makes feel that this guy can't really be trusted ...

Of course - it's open source. But while I don't agree with the amount of his fee, I think devs should be paid - and it's not like more than 2-3% of people donate.

i would have donated but the way he forces us makes me not wanna trust him .... and he is being very rude about it because he knows that his closed source software is the only one available to AMD cards also his software is under developed it doesn't even show cards temps how lazy is that and still forcing us to pay him for that lousy job of his just because he knows that we have no other option 

I released a 2x faster cpuminer for XMR a while ago - I got less than 0.2 BTC in donations. Believe me, donators are in the minority.

well at least u were a decent man and still started a new open source gpu miner project despite the low donation, that's something

[teknohog]

I need to know if it gets correct hashes 

I'm now getting about 1 H/s which is nowhere close to CPU speeds, so I'm not going to wait for shares now.

Stupid question about design: are you returning the full result to the CPU for testing against difficulty? Because most GPU miners do an initial test on the GPU, which makes communication a lot faster, and they only return the gid/nonce when necessary. It looks like you're not using the gid...

[dragonmike]

I released a 2x faster cpuminer for XMR a while ago - I got less than 0.2 BTC in donations. Believe me, donators are in the minority.

I herewith commit to donate 0.03 BTC to yourself (I know it's not much but that's still a week worth of mining on my rig nowadays ) if you manage to get the XMR miner working on Linux for AMD GPUs (with comparable or better hashrates Claymore achieves on Windows). I would then need the exact commands to compile/install etc as well as my Linux skills are second to... all.  

[restless]

I think a donation fee is ok. Its fair to give developer a share, and this way everyone donates proportional to their "income".

[Crypto_EX]

I think a donation fee is ok. Its fair to give developer a share, and this way everyone donates proportional to their "income".

5% is not okay though because we have electricity to pay for too ...

[bestsponsor]

I think a donation fee is ok. Its fair to give developer a share, and this way everyone donates proportional to their "income".

5% is not okay though because we have electricity to pay for too ...

How about bounty ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=656841.0 Total: 500 XMR, 1 BTC

[restless]

I think a donation fee is ok. Its fair to give developer a share, and this way everyone donates proportional to their "income".

5% is not okay though because we have electricity to pay for too ...

Why not?!
A miner which gives you 2x the speed of regular one (if any!) and you think 5% is too much?
Don't use it then.
Its a win-win for the developer AND users. Until better way to reward devs is found
 

[Crypto_EX]

I think a donation fee is ok. Its fair to give developer a share, and this way everyone donates proportional to their "income".

5% is not okay though because we have electricity to pay for too ...

Why not?!
A miner which gives you 2x the speed of regular one (if any!) and you think 5% is too much?
Don't use it then.
Its a win-win for the developer AND users. Until better way to reward devs is found
 

we have to cover electricity costs 5% is too much and he charges that much because he knows we don't have any other option, if i'm not going to profit (electricity is 80% of my mining revenue + 5% dev fee + 2% pool fee) after paying for electricity then what is the point .....

also 2 x faster 100 x faster difficulty will normalize that when everybody starts using that miner

devfee should never be over 1 ~ 2 % as a maximum because tons of users will be using that miner and hash for him at no electricity cost so why be greedy, i mean the dev will still end with a huge amount of electricity free hashes ...

[Coindgr]

I think a donation fee is ok. Its fair to give developer a share, and this way everyone donates proportional to their "income".

5% is not okay though because we have electricity to pay for too ...

Why not?!
A miner which gives you 2x the speed of regular one (if any!) and you think 5% is too much?
Don't use it then.
Its a win-win for the developer AND users. Until better way to reward devs is found
 

we have to cover electricity costs 5% is too much and he charges that much because he knows we don't have any other option, if i'm not going to profit (electricity is 80% of my mining revenue + 5% dev fee + 2% pool fee) after paying for electricity then what is the point .....

also 2 x faster 100 x faster difficulty will normalize that when everybody starts using that miner

devfee should never be over 1 ~ 2 % as a maximum because tons of users will be using that miner and hash for him at no electricity cost so why be greedy, i mean the dev will still end with a huge amount of electricity free hashes ...

Also, if no faster miner was released, and everybody was still using a slower one, then it would be the same, just the difficulty would be lower, but the amount of coins for each should be similar.

[SpeedDemon13]

I think a donation fee is ok. Its fair to give developer a share, and this way everyone donates proportional to their "income".

5% is not okay though because we have electricity to pay for too ...

Why not?!
A miner which gives you 2x the speed of regular one (if any!) and you think 5% is too much?
Don't use it then.
Its a win-win for the developer AND users. Until better way to reward devs is found
 

we have to cover electricity costs 5% is too much and he charges that much because he knows we don't have any other option, if i'm not going to profit (electricity is 80% of my mining revenue + 5% dev fee + 2% pool fee) after paying for electricity then what is the point .....

also 2 x faster 100 x faster difficulty will normalize that when everybody starts using that miner

devfee should never be over 1 ~ 2 % as a maximum because tons of users will be using that miner and hash for him at no electricity cost so why be greedy, i mean the dev will still end with a huge amount of electricity free hashes ...

Honestly, a dev for a miner will get more at 2% or lower dev fee, because people will more likely give a donation that will surpass the 5% from the richer miners/investors. This is my opinion though.

 

[SpeedDemon13]

I think a donation fee is ok. Its fair to give developer a share, and this way everyone donates proportional to their "income".

5% is not okay though because we have electricity to pay for too ...

Why not?!
A miner which gives you 2x the speed of regular one (if any!) and you think 5% is too much?
Don't use it then.
Its a win-win for the developer AND users. Until better way to reward devs is found
 

we have to cover electricity costs 5% is too much and he charges that much because he knows we don't have any other option, if i'm not going to profit (electricity is 80% of my mining revenue + 5% dev fee + 2% pool fee) after paying for electricity then what is the point .....

also 2 x faster 100 x faster difficulty will normalize that when everybody starts using that miner

devfee should never be over 1 ~ 2 % as a maximum because tons of users will be using that miner and hash for him at no electricity cost so why be greedy, i mean the dev will still end with a huge amount of electricity free hashes ...

Honestly, a dev for a miner will get more at 2% or lower dev fee, because people will more likely give a donation that will surpass the 5% from the richer miners/investors. This is my opinion though.

 

Noooooooooope.

If I was a more wealthier miner/investor, I would donate 10% of my earnings. But that's how I think...Guess others don't think like that....I did say it's my opinion, to re-quote it....

[SpeedDemon13]

5% fee doesn't bother me from Claymore's miner, but the performance could be %50 or more would be more satisfactory....

Anyone having some success in compile a better version for CryptoNight algo? Even in alpha form?