Sigh. This isn't worth arguing ad nauseum with people who have zero investment in any of it. I give up. GCC was the bestest compiler ever 3 days before the first line of code was written for it, and it will be the bestest compiler ever until the very end of the human race. RMS is a God among men. Linux as it exists right now today will never ever change because it is the most perfectest OS ever, and change is evil and all change is a plan by Microsoft to subvert and destroy Freedom. God bless the GPL.
Yes, do the strawman, because it's not as if I haven't constantly been advocating the great thing of having BOTH compilers while acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of BOTH compilers while you have done nothing but trashtalk GCC and yet hilariously you've complained about other totally biased people in this thread.
Zero investment? At work we pretty much exclusively use GCC and Clang/LLVM, so I use them EVERY DAY except when I'm on vacation (which I'm just back from, sure could have done with a few more weeks boss!).
Wth does Linux never changing come from? I'm sure it's the fastest developing kernel out there bar none. If you are alluding to it changing from GPL (as you brought it up in conjunction) then that's probably as likely as Microsoft GPL licencing Windows.
Bottom line, GCC and Clang/LLVM are great compiler toolchains, they have different strengths/weaknesses. They are both also developed at a very high pace, something which is likely fueled by the competition they offer eachother. This is awesome for all of us using these compiler toolchains, no matter if we use both or just one of them.
There are zelots on each side of the fence (you are one of them) who refuse to acknowledge that they both offer great value and instead try to discredit the one they don't like as toy/bloated/slow crap/etc etc, in my opinion the reasons for these attacks generally have nothing to do with the compilers themselves but are rather results of some zelots identifying them as GPL vs BSD and not being able to look past that.
Compiler benchmarks are meaningless unless you use proper CFLAGS. As far as I can tell, proper CFLAGS were not set.
Whenever one of these are published, "helpful" individuals think that the benchmarks explain everything that they need to know. They then start contacting people who develop distributions. Then we have to take time that we would have spent programming to explain that the benchmark numbers are meaningless. Publishing meaningless benchmarks is a great way to undermine open source development. Each publication wastes developer time.