It fixes the legal problem. Intel isn't required to provide an optimized compiler for competitors' chips, but it is required to note that its compiler that is compatible with those chips doesn't optimize code for them.

I don't agree either, but it's a perfectly valid solution (and probably the best for Intel's bottom line).

I think that the fact that it fixes legal problem is itself a legal problem or rather legislation prolem.

A more effective place to put the notice would be to standard output when you're compiling for AMD.

You're compiling for x86, not AMD. The crippled AMD version is based on a runtime check.

There are several benchmarks out there showing that the Intel compiler can give a boost for AMD chips over MS VC++ and MingG++ on Windows.

They should have originally used supported flags for different features instead of blacklisting the name, but it's still difficult to know what chips support what and whether it's worth using those features, due to different instruction latency, etc.

ICC get register dynamic code switching to different paths in the exe, so that if the chip supports AVX2, it'll use that code path.

intel paid more than 10M to lawyers so they could debate on legalities of the law instead of the intent of the law, hence not having to fix the problem.

they are not worried about fines. fines are cheap for those companies. they are worried about market control.

they are what they are thanks to phoenix reverse engineering IBM bios and the rise of the generic PC market. Now they fear anyone that can enter the market as easily as they entered and hope to not make the same mistake IBM did.