Thank you for taking the time to clarify the situation. But..
Regardless of how you sugar-coat it, designating a language as not
release critical means in practice you can't rely on GCC going
forward for that language. And when there are manpower shortages,
the situation is not likely to improve -- rather, the gaps that need
to be filled for support to return will increase. The direction
things are going for GCC is to try to make it a cutting edge C/C++
compiler as you say. But is closing that 10% or 20% gap separating
GCC from the IBM and Intel compilers really worth jettisoning entire
languages along the way? Could there be a middle ground to holding
up releases for too long waiting for non-market-majority development
(a practice which led to the splintering of egcs in the past) on one
side and gradually but surely becoming a specialist C/C++ solution
on the other?