Especially after clang showed the world how useful error messages look like.<p>And GCC has some serious limits when it comes to help other tools, because RMS (probably rightfully) fears that if GCC outputs to detailed backend information, people would start adding non-GPL software after it and build non-GPL compilers on top of GCC.<p>Which lead to the funny situation of people asking to include LLVM-based tools into Emacs, because LLVM allows to build code-analysis tools GCC just doesn&#x27;t provide the info for.<p>IMHO clang&#x27;s success and maybe even existence is clear result of GCCs restrictions, but removing these restrictions would undermine central principles.<p>And both compilers are better now than they would be if the other didn&#x27;t exist, so good for everyone I guess? It doesn&#x27;t seem possible to reach all goals with just one of them.