It's over, GCC is finished

And they don't like what they see:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-01/msg00313.html

GCC's future looks bleak, in fact there won't be a future at all because GCC is deprecated.

This isn't the first time GCC has been deprecated by a superior project but it will be the first time the FSF won't be able to adopt the superior project as the new GCC.

Fact: GCC is defective by design.
Fact: GCC is obsolete.
Fact: GCC is deprecated.

>>13
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00460.html
GCC mailing list:
RMS believes that people who extend GCC, hoping to take their extensions proprietary, and then finding that they can't, will then just decide to contribute the code, if it is useful, since otherwise they can't distribute and have to support it by themselves forever, or else they have to risk legal problems.  And he has some evidence that this sometimes happens (C++, Objective-C, many contributed back ends).  So the intent isn't to prevent certain people from using it, but to have those people contribute the changes back even if that isn't their preference.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/101374
The FSF doesn't want plugins because they are concerned that people will start distributing proprietary plugins to gcc.  I personally think this is a fear from twenty years ago which shows a lack of understanding of today's compiler market, but, that said, the FSF wants to cover themselves for the future as well.