Whether that's still true in terms of the trade-offs being worth it to maintain the policy in the current day, and if it's no longer true what value of N accurately describes when that changed, is something that I think people can reasonably disagree about.
(my extremely boring take being "there's so many counterfactuals here I'm really not sure")
See the email thread I linked for several such examples.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...
Most compiler research and tooling development now happens in the LLVM ecosystem, precisely because they dragged their feet for so long.
This is wildly offtopic for this thread, but it is not clear that Stallman's stance on this issue was an error. The wide existence of LLVM-based compilers for proprietary architectures is, for many of us, a tragedy that Stallman correctly anticipated. His insightful and courageous steering of the GCC development was a crucial step in avoiding this problem for GCC.