As proven by industry adoption of clang, that isn't an option in many platforms.
replyAdditionally clang is driving C extensions for safety that should have long been part of the language.
IMHO gcc has better warnings and support for safety. Industry mostly wants a BSD-licensed toolchain. I could not care less.
replyGCC only recently started with its safety analysers, it doesn't do C++, and isn't as customisable as clang tidy.
replyAdditionally it lacks the language extensions Apple and Google have been adding to clang, which remains to be seen which ever get proposed to be part of the standard.
You might care less, however as mentioned there are industry relevant platforms where GCC doesn't get to play at all, thus plenty of people do care.
This discussion was about C not C++. GCC also has language extensions for safety, such as the access attribute, the dynamic object size pass, and far better warnings.
replyBig tech cares about a lot of things of dubious value to me, the users, or developers. As a C programmer, if you want to write modern and safe C, my recommendation is to use gcc.