Well, in reality, the point of making available in compiling with other compilers, is that it's
never a good thing to stick to only one compiler, because any compiler have bugs, in any version, or maybe, for example, it can compile without errors something in your code that is not compliant (this especially happens when going from GCC2 to GCC3, etc), and then you'll notice that some of your code wasn't right.
Well, it seems that you only care about windows users, and I must say, that I've saw various posts about 'how I can compile C::B with MSVC...'
You are ignoring the fact that there are people that doesn't like at all GCC (SLOW, bloated, ...), or are more comfortable with other compiler, but wants to help developing plugins, etc.
You would be right in thinking that is not worth the effort, but
it's not the case with Code::Blocks, because it's written in cross-compiler way, there are probably very few things to 'fix' to make it compile with let's say MSVC7, DMars, and OpenWatcom.
I would like to see C::B running in, for example, QNX (one of the most widely used real time OS for embedded systems), or in Linux 'framebuffer'. And that is only possible when compiled in OpenWatcom.
About the compilation time, I can assure you, that with DMars you'll be compiling the entire C::B in 20 seconds (on your pc) instead of 7 mins with GCC.
Back to the topic, we got here
because GCC is one of the worst when it comes to executable size (especially true in win32).
wxWidgets minimal when compiled stripped with
GCC tipically weights
3.4 MB, and compiled with, for example
MSVC6/2003 weights
0.8 MB. That alone, justifies the little effort in supporting that compiler.