@GrahamcOfBorg build lldb_10 lldb_11

Diff makes sense to me. Not realistically going to build/test this any time soon.

@primeos what about these? Let me squash, quick.

Why do you disable RTTI for lldb? I think it would make more sense to enable it, since it is enabled for llvm/clang.

It was disabled before, I didn't change that. What would enabling buy us? LLVM has its own RTTI-ish scheme, and it doesn't need all the features of the C++ RTTI. Or am I missing a detail?

It is set for llvm, because some packages seem to need it (4731485)and it is set on clang, because a mismatch can lead to problems with clang-plugins.
I don't know if it changes something for lldb, I just think it makes sense to keep it the same everywhere (at least where it is needed/given).

I know a (Rust) program that uses lldb.so, but it will never care. If other C++ programs want to link against it that in a way that RTTI would become advantageous, I would say let's enable. Otherwise it just increases .so sizes.

I don't know of any programs using lldb in this way, but it leads to linking errors that are hard to track.

I only asked, because it is different from llvm. I'll have another look at it later, maybe RTTI isn't needed anymore, quite some time has passed since it was enabled :)