# Chez for architectures without native backends **URL:** \ **Category:** Distro Packagers\ **Tags:** question, chez\ **Created:** [May 1, 2022, 8:11pm UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-without-native-backends/950 "2022-05-01T20:11:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![mflatt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/racket.discourse.group/mflatt/32/6_2.png) [@mflatt](https://racket.discourse.group/u/mflatt)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2022, 7:16pm UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-without-native-backends/950/2 "2022-05-02T19:16:56Z")
Yes, the more I look at it, it's clear that the claim to support other platforms was premature. Racket CS can now work in principle, but some pieces need to be filled in. For a start, the Chez Scheme `configure` script shouldn't require a machine to go with `--pb`. You can get past that obstacle by providing any machine type with `-m=`, even using a made-up machine name. A good generic choice might be a pbarch name like `tpb64le`. Still, there's no longer a reason to require a machine type. For the corners where pb mode needs machine-specific configuration, the intent is that "version.h" detects the machine as needed. For example,"version.h" recognizes ppc64 to enable big-endian mode in the runtime system... but that's not right for ppc64le. No doubt other things need to be fixed or added in "version.h". Meanwhile, Racket's `configure` script looks for specific architectures to pick a pbarch machine type, and it also still requires a non-pb machine type. We can fill in more cases, but there should also be a way to specify a pbarch variant directly. Probably the way forward is to fix configure scripts to not require a non-pb machine type, and then see what happens when building for different platforms. --- _[View the full topic](https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-without-native-backends/950)._