LLVM is not a VM by any stretch of the imagination. It is an intermediate language for compilers whose primary utility is to provide a common target for code generation and optimization. LLVM's name is a misnomer.
This is true, but the comment you were replying to was pretty clearly treating it as a language. With "VM" in scare quotes because it's a semantic model.
You're thinking of that email that someone sent on a mailing list a while back about how LLVM isn't really a bytecode because it includes architecture-specific codes.
It was a stupid email - you can make LLVM into an architecture-agnostic bytecode by disallowing those codes.
"You're thinking of that email that someone sent on a mailing list a while back about how LLVM isn't really a bytecode because it includes architecture-specific codes."
No, I'm not. In fact, I have no idea what email you're referencing.
LLVM as an intermediate language (I guess you could call it bytecode if you really wanted to) for compilers of arbitrary languages (expressly not a virtual machine!) is the only point I intended to make.