> 3) gcc is now failing to compete with another compiler that it really needs to. I'm not sure this is true, is gcc really competing with clang? I personally d

> 3) gcc is now failing to compete with another compiler that it really needs to. I'm not sure this is true, is gcc really competing with clang? I personally don't perceive there to be competition. I'm not clear on the emacs situation though, is emacs unable to call out to clang for metadata because of the license? Regardless, correctly parsing c++ is just about the toughest problem there is when it comes to parsing programming languages. Besides clang, gcc, and the parsers in open source projects like qt creator, kdevelop (these two used to be related iirc, but now both are clang i believe), and eclipse cdt, there aren't any free ones. All the rest are closed source. Last I heard microsoft licensed the c/c++ parser they use from a third party. There's value in being able to parse c++ correctly, clang is really exceptional in addressing tool support in this way.