> It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that > people choose.
I don't think that anybody made the argument that LLVM is the "default" in any sense. What's being given here are reasons why some people prefer LLVM over GCC. > In those places, they don't trust Microsoft or anybody that provides > software products that are difficult or impossible to review. Free > software is not prohibited, since the government has access to the > source code. Any tool that comes compiled is not acceptable there. For a compiler, of course, you need a compiled version of it to start with. If you use that same compiler to build itself, having the source code does *not* protect you from malware, as Ken Thompson showed back in 1984. Even if you take the stance that you'll compile GCC with LLVM and vice versa, you still have the risk that both of the binaries have been compromised in this way.
