Well, the article seems to miss the most important question:
* Does GCC need to concern itself with static analysis, diagnostics, modularity and all the other things where Clang excels and GCC sucks?
My opinion is that these shortcomings are producing an increasing transfer of contributors and users from GCC to LLVM, so this should be a high-priority.
Unfortunately, GCC maintainers see these things as nuisances and, at best, their answer is that people who are interested in this should do the work (without disturbing the GCC maintainers' work). But people who are interested in these features are moving to LLVM, and then working on LLVM to get the features where GCC still has some advantage (portability, optimization).
It would have been nice if the article, apart from reading what anyone could read in the mailing list, have asked some GCC global maintainers (some from google, some for suse/fedora) about their opinion on the subject and the future of GCC. Contrary to what the article says, there has been no visible wake-up call at all.