Author here. You didn't really ask a question, but I thought I'd mention a few things that may be related. 1. Mu isn't intended to be portable. There are no ot

Author here. You didn't really ask a question, but I thought I'd mention a few things that may be related. 1. Mu isn't intended to be portable. There are no other backends, not even other processor families. Though you still have to put up with other processors within the same family, if it's a new instruction that older processors don't have. So far it just focuses on lowest-common-denominator 32-bit instructions. 2. The whole goal with Mu is to eliminate impedance mismatch with the architecture. It's relatively straightforward to add another instruction at the Mu level called 'rotate', and have it code-generate the appropriate x86 instruction. That seems less convoluted than assuming a fixed language and compiler and expressing a rotation out of 4 binary operators. 3. Finally, there's also the option of writing some functions in the 'machine code' level called SubX. Functions generated by Mu and SubX will freely inter-operate, though SubX functions lack safety guarantees.