Modifying and selling gcc to compile code optimized for lots of different underpowered processors sounds like an unattractive business model to me, given (I assume) a relatively small number of customers for any given microprocessor type and (again I assume) a significant amount of work for each microprocessor type supported.
Sort of. There are folks who have C compilers optimized for smaller processors, my personal favorite are the folks at ImageCraft. That isn't what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about people who take the community developed gcc (which they haven't "optimized" at all) and Eclipse config, and some of their own startup code crt0.a + linkerscript. And then put that together as their tool for $3,000. I'm sure its a wonderful business for them.
RMS was railing that clang wasn't embodying the spirit of "free software" because it parts could be proprietary, but he doesn't rail against those people like IAR who keep their parts proprietary but are riding on the shoulders of the community doing the heavy lifting.
I find that notable because I like what the folks are trying to achieve with clang and do not like what IAR has done with gcc. Granted it is entirely my own personal pain point.
>> simply getting credentialed (i.e. getting your Ph.D.)
>> does not mean you can count on a tenure track
>> academic faculty position.
This has never been the case. In order to avoid exponential growth, the average professor that trains Ph.D.s can only produce in his/her career about one student who goes on to become a professor that trains Ph.D.s. (ignoring some growth in a particular field). Some schools produce a much larger number of future professors. As a result many smaller schools produce very few.