If they produce control flow _in the executable binary_ that is untested, then they could conceivably lead to broken states. I don’t believe most of those sorts of transformations cause alternative control flows to be added to the executable binary.
I don’t think anyone would find the idea compelling that “you are only responsible for the code you write, not the code that actually runs” if the code that actually runs causes unexpected invalid behavior on millions of mobile devices.
Well this way of arguing it may seem smart but it is not fully correct.
Google already ships binaries compiled with Rust in Android. They are actually system services which are more critical than SQLite storage of apps.
Moreover Rust version of SQLite can ship binaries compiled with a qualified compiler like Ferrocene: https://ferrocene.dev/en/ (which is the downstream, qualified version of standard Rust compiler rustc). In qualification process the compiler is actually checked whether it generates reasonable machine code against a strict set of functional requirements.
Most people don't compile SQLite with qualified versions of GCC either. So this exact argument actually can be turned against them.
I don’t think anyone would find the idea compelling that “you are only responsible for the code you write, not the code that actually runs” if the code that actually runs causes unexpected invalid behavior on millions of mobile devices.