> That is irrelevant, as most of those companies are keeping their modifications to LLVM closed-source. They are not at all interested in fostering a healthy open-source ecosystem around LLVM.

AMD, Intel, ARM, ... they all have proprietary toolchains built on LLVM, and send and merge multiple diffs to LLVM upstream, every day.

> GCC doesn't really have that. This is just wrong. Just as a single example,

If that's your main example, you are in for a ride. Since asutton branch is over 15 years old almost at this point, and it was by design that no work should happen in LLVM until concepts make it into the standard.

I can give you a dozen examples, from constexpr, metaclasses, coroutines, modules, etc. where things made it much earlier into LLVM than GCC.

> Again, no. There is nothing in the 30+-years long history of GCC that suggests that this would happen.

From 2005 to 2014 GCC development severely stagnated, being much slower than clang, having horrible error messages when compared to clang, etc. It was not until after 2016 where some open source companies, like redhat, started pouring more money into GCC that this started to change. The moment these companies are out, the same thing will happen.