Comment 11 for bug 1095034

Eeeexcept that clang still claims it is present. I have to admit, I don't see how it could be null after explicitly asserting that it isn't. Starting to sound very much like a false positive to me as well.

Hm, I wonder if we should just leave these bug reports be for now, and then I'll rerun clang-analyzer once llvm 3.3 is out to see what it has to say then..