[Able.]

Would like you guys's honest opinion on each compiler.

Imo, gcc wins, as I don't have that much of a problem with their terrible error messages. From benchmark results gcc produces the fastest code out of all.
Clang's error messages are undeniably better though. And as for msvc... I don't know much.

[Charger]

I prefer GCC to compile. Based on my experience, it's the easiest to troubleshoot and it's been around since the start of C/C++.

[HFDone]

cl compiller (msvc) is simple to use
gcc have more options to use

[Sajuuk]

MSVC is obviously better if you're targeting Windows machines either mainly or exclusively. Me, personally, I like openness and transparency when it comes to pretty much anything, including the tools I use when programming. I've used TDM-GCC for several years now and have never encountered any serious issues. Granted, there are compile and execution time differences, but at this point it's nearly unnoticeable.

I've looked into LLVM, but as far as use on Windows goes it seems to have maintained its fringe aspect where as GCC and MSVC remain far more widespread. That doesn't necessarily mean it's better or worse, I've just never bothered to give it a shot.

[aetherhf]

I prefer GCC and posix emulators to use c syntax and his linguistics but you need other compilers and this choice can change when you used operating system.

[Donkey Death Jam]

GCC all the way; popular, easy to use and produces optimal code in most cases. Clang-tidy/format are amazing addons which can be used separately from Clang - probably the best free linter/static analysis tool for C++ you can find today. Other than that, LLVM hasn't got much else that attracts me. MSVC vs GCC is a hard comparison due to the OS focus, but MSVC is really the only choice for Windows. It integrates seamlessly with Windows debugging tools and makes life a hell of a lot easier in that aspect, but I find its error reporting to be awkward and it doesn't feel as fleshed out as GCC/LLVM.