They're actually called trusting trust attacks (the original paper on the topic is "Reflections on Trusting Trust" if you want a guarranteed search term); I'm not sure why userbinator used a eponym instead.
I'm also not sure why they would be relevant for a general project, since the source language being easy to write a alternate compiler for only matters for the compiler itself: once you have non-infected compiler, you can bootstrap gcc or whatever and compile everything else at whatever C standard you like.
