Dew, the compiler complaint was the most ridiculous, overblown, and distorted part of the antitrust lawsuits.
I already explained to you FPT, What Intel is willing to do with Marketing it is also willing to do with Engineering. It is a simple matter of Intel's purpose behind its actions.
There are many extensions to the x86 architecture, such as the original MMX multimedia extensions, which were then enhanced by SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions), then SSE2 and, more recently, SSE3. Those are all found on processors made by Intel and by other companies, including AMD. ...
...It's good that AMD and Intel, the two microprocessor giants, as well as smaller companies like VIA, use the same core instruction-set standard. This allows the companies to innovate and compete on implementation, while we developers and end users can be assured that compiled code will run on any x86-based system with the right instruction-set extensions. ....
... So the optimizing compiler also adds a bit of runtime code that actually checks to see if the processor has the right extensions, and then gently fails the app if it runs on a non-supported processor. In the case of the Intel compiler, it fails with the message, "Fatal Error: This program is not built to run on the processor in your system."
So far, so good. But how does that little bit of runtime code see if the processor is compatible? It doesn't actually try executing the extensions. Instead, it uses the CPUID instruction to ask the processor to explain its specific capabilities.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
