[userbinator]

The reason why GCC and LLVM ended up attaining overwhelming market is simply that they produce the fastest possible code

No, I think it's more because they are free.

In my experience, ICC can be much better at instruction selection while also not being so crazy with exploiting UB.

[pcwalton]

I'm also skeptical about the often-claimed superiority of ICC. The numbers I've seen are very equivocal.

Besides, it's irrelevant: there are lots of free C compilers that don't exploit UB, and also rarely get used.

[rurban]

Lots? None are usable to replace our current insane compilers, removing code without warnings.

None of pgcc, sdcc, tcc, lcc and friends work with current code bases, plus they have severe bugs.

[Someone]

ICC nowadays is based on LLVM (https://software.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/blogs/a...).

That might mean the differences have mostly disappeared, but that may depend on what the front end (icx vs clang) does.

[gHosts]

They also support the widest range of CPU's

[vyodaiken]

It is because they are "free" and also because they attract massive investment from FAANG and National Labs etc.

[Arnt]

Uh, massive investment? The commit logs reveals how many people work on them, and while it's massive compared to single-pizza teams I've worked in buildings where all of them could get a desk each.