The trouble with that level of pedantry is that you then can point to LLVM as a VM and say that Clang and other C/C++/Rust tools that AOT through LLVM are "too tied to a virtual machine". Then you can go back through the history of cross-platform optimizing C/C++ compilers and find VMs in the design in almost all of those, too. LLVM is not hiding it in its very clear name, but low-level VMs were a thing for decades before someone named LLVM.
VMs have a long history in cross-compilation, even for "low-level" languages like C/C++. The AOT versus JIT distinction is blurry, and the "VM language" versus "non-VM language" boundary is blurrier still, especially when you take into account "standard runtimes" such as glibc and vcrt and whether or not those are statically linked.
Is a C program with a compiled with Clang through the LLVM dynamically linking a glibc and statically linking a Boehm GC library "running in a VM"? There's no wrong answer, it's a lot shades of gray. I believe almost every pedantic way to answer that has an equally pedantic counter-argument.
VMs have a long history in cross-compilation, even for "low-level" languages like C/C++. The AOT versus JIT distinction is blurry, and the "VM language" versus "non-VM language" boundary is blurrier still, especially when you take into account "standard runtimes" such as glibc and vcrt and whether or not those are statically linked.
Is a C program with a compiled with Clang through the LLVM dynamically linking a glibc and statically linking a Boehm GC library "running in a VM"? There's no wrong answer, it's a lot shades of gray. I believe almost every pedantic way to answer that has an equally pedantic counter-argument.