Not open source, and actually it's not free, either. People sure think it is, but that's only for students at degree-granting institutions, and people working on open-source code who are not being paid.

Academic researchers can get a free library license, but not a compiler license.

Ditto Digital Mars C++ (nee Symantec C++, nee Zortech C++). But as I recall, like most other "alternative" C++ compilers, it's also stuck in the C++03 land.

That's because I work on D now :-)

No worries. :)

DMC++ is still awesome, because it's the only ISO C++ compiler out there that can target any kind of DOS platform and binary format, from 16-bit .COM files (!!!) to 32-bit DOS extender.

Which happens to have really great compile times, in spite of using even more metaprogramming than C++. Thank you for your work!

I was pretty skeptical of D for a while, mainly because of the GC, but I've started to take a liking to it. It's a very useful tool.

I've been slowly converting my older C/C++ code still in use into D. Next up is the dmd back end!

It's not free for commercial use. And it's probably the slowest compiler there is although the generated assembly is generally of incredible quality.

It's slow because of the multiple times it has to compile and optimize for all the different processor revisions.

Does it? Last I looked it did 1 by default, 2 if you ask nicely.

The main reason it's slow is that it does a lot of analysis, even at -O1.

It was my understanding that the advantage of Intel's compiler is that it would optimize for the strengths available on newer processors while still allowing it to work on older processors (for example, using AVX instructions if available and a slower branch if not) [aka, the "CPU dispatcher"]. Agner wrote about it "crippling" AMD processors because they didn't say they were "GenuineIntel" back in 2009.[0]

[0]: http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

Intel makes use of EDG as far as I am aware.