You expect Clang to support (and be stable) on 20 architectures in 2 years?
I don't, no. I expect it to support and be stable on the handful of commonly used architectures though.
However, in a couple of years it could be the case that when companies come up with new architectures (like the Cell, for instance) they base their compilers around LLVM instead of GCC, and I would love to see that happen.
I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that most of the work on GCC is done by engineers at companies like that, though. So it may be a hard thing to transition away from GCC, but clang has a higher upside. GCC will continue to get messier and harder to maintain while clang hopefully has a good 25 years before it accumulates that much cruft.
What's more fun though is trying to speculate on whether or not software would be further along than it is today had there never been any controlling laws to begin with. I believe it would be, since even if there were more attempts at keeping code closed, leaks of that code would bust everything open and the amount of source code circulating throughout the public would be much more advanced as everything could much more easily be built upon. Money would be generated purely by services and bounties (paid development sprints), what I believe will eventually be the future and most likely have to take place before it is finally realized that licensing laws deprive everyone of a better quality of life due to the needless wasteful money spent in courtrooms that it causes. At least until money itself is abolished.
So, basically, it'd be like your mom's secret recipe for meatloaf, which she once told you and which you "accidentally" slipped to one of your friends, etc..
So it may be a hard thing to transition away from GCC, but clang has a higher upside. GCC will continue to get messier and harder to maintain while clang hopefully has a good 25 years before it accumulates that much cruft.
Not true, since GCC's code base is continously being enhanced and thus getting less 'messy' and less 'harder to maintain'. Again I don't understand those who wants one compiler to emerge 'victorious', that's the worst possible outcome. Lack of competition ALWAYS leads to stagnation. The best of worlds is GCC and Clang continously going head to head, driving their developers to create the best possible products. The only reason I can see for people to want one compiler to fail is if they have some external agendas. Also it would seem alot of these people are not even using the compilers in question judging by their poor knowledge regarding them.