No argument there, but how is that radically different than embracing GHC Haskell, Racket, rustc, or Go, or any of the other de-facto compilers for a language?
I'm personally not opposed to breaking from ANSI/ISO in regards to using GCC or clang; these platforms are incredibly well-tested and supported, produce fast executables, and work on basically every platform out there.
Sure, there are a lot of compilers for C, but my point is that I'm happy enough writing GCC C; a large chunk of the nonstandard GCC stuff actually works across other compilers (like clang and Intel), and my point was that I'm happy enough, at least for the work that I do in C occasionally, to limit myself to compilers that support the GCC extensions.
Yes, the world isn't composed of FOSS UNIX clones entirely, but GCC works on a lot of platforms now that aren't Unix. MinGW has typically worked fine for me on Windows (not even counting Cygwin or WSL). I don't do systems programming, so I don't know how much (if at all) GCC is used on stuff like micro-controllers.
I suppose I didn't make my argument clear enough, but as I said, if you view GCC C as its own language, I don't view that as different than using rustc.
I'm personally not opposed to breaking from ANSI/ISO in regards to using GCC or clang; these platforms are incredibly well-tested and supported, produce fast executables, and work on basically every platform out there.