ATTENTION! OpenCL kernel self-test failed.
#11
it would be great if anyone of you (affected users) could try to find out what changes from the recent git history introduced this problem.
I think it would be enough git cloning the repository and trying with cygwin to compile and run the binaries

see
https://github.com/hashcat/hashcat/blob/..._CYGWIN.md or
https://github.com/hashcat/hashcat/blob/...D_MSYS2.md

on how to get the code running . we would then go back in history with git checkouts (make clean, git log, git checkout older versions, make, run) to see which commit introduced the problem. Without this information we can't do much here.
Reply
#12
(08-29-2019, 07:38 PM)philsmd Wrote: it would be great if anyone of you (affected users) could try to find out what changes from the recent git history introduced this problem.
I think it would be enough git cloning the repository and trying with cygwin to compile and run the  binaries

see
https://github.com/hashcat/hashcat/blob/..._CYGWIN.md or
https://github.com/hashcat/hashcat/blob/...D_MSYS2.md

on how to get the code running . we would then go back in history with git checkouts (make clean, git log, git checkout older versions, make, run) to see which commit introduced the problem. Without this information we can't do much here.

All changes are made by the developer. He doesn’t look at our posts? His right to make adjustments based on our statements.
Reply
#13
too many changes since that specific version. it could be (almost) any change that introduced the problem:

current version: +1394 after release
your version: +910 after release

that's almost 500 changes (484 exactly, 1394-910) that could be the culprit

My guess is that this is the commit with the largest changes for -m 2500: https://github.com/hashcat/hashcat/commit/5b97fe7

but I'm also not totally sure if this is still after your +910 version (but seems so from my calculations), that would be a change/version from mid April

Unfortunately, without anybody trying to find the culprit and pinpointing the problem, it's kind of impossible to understand the self-test error. BTW: the code of course works with all new(er) Nvidia/AMD cards as far as we know, so it must be NOT ONLY source code related, but kind of a driver bug that was only triggered by this source code change (the current code works perfectly fine with new AMD and Nvidia GPUs as far as we tested).
Reply
#14
(08-29-2019, 09:02 PM)philsmd Wrote: too many changes since that specific version. it could be (almost) any change that introduced the problem:

current version: +1394 after release
your version: +910 after release

that's almost 500 changes (484 exactly, 1394-910) that could be the culprit

My guess is that this is the commit with the largest changes for -m 2500: https://github.com/hashcat/hashcat/commit/5b97fe7

but I'm also not totally sure if this is still after your +910 version (but seems so from my calculations), that would be a change/version from mid April

Unfortunately, without anybody trying to find the culprit and pinpointing the problem, it's kind of impossible to understand the self-test error. BTW: the code of course works with all new(er) Nvidia/AMD cards as far as we know, so it must be NOT ONLY source code related, but kind of a driver bug that was only triggered by this source code change (the current code works perfectly fine with new AMD and Nvidia GPUs as far as we tested).

Yes. You are right on the newer Ellesmere processor (I have installed the second), the problem does not appear.
hashcat-5.1.0 + 914 gave an error. 14.04.19
Reply
#15
(08-29-2019, 06:57 PM)intem Wrote: Hi intem, can you please share the hashcat-5.1.0+910 beta? I didn't find anywhere else to download this version. I having the same issue in my R9 280, Thanks!


Sent by mail.

Having the same problem, would you send me this version as well? Thanks in advance
Reply