Enhance INITCHECK so it catches the use of uninitialized indexes in SEARCH statements

The frequent programming error of forgetting to set an index before a SEARCH is not being detected by INITCHECK. In the following example program, the index U150-ACT-IND-IDX is erroneously not set before the SEARCH U150-TRANX-ACT-IND-DATA line. With the INITCHECK compiler option in effect, it is not detecting this programming error where the U150-ACT-IND-IDX index is used before it is set.

PROGRAM-ID. TESTPROG.
DATA DIVISION.
LOCAL-STORAGE SECTION.
01 GROUP-A.
10 U150-TRANX-ACT-IND-DATA
OCCURS 16 TIMES INDEXED BY U150-ACT-IND-IDX.
15 U150-ACT-IND PIC X VALUE 'A'.
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
AA000-MAINLINE SECTION.
SEARCH U150-TRANX-ACT-IND-DATA
WHEN U150-ACT-IND(U150-ACT-IND-IDX) = 'A'
CONTINUE
END-SEARCH.
GOBACK.
END PROGRAM TESTPROG.

INITCHECK currently doesn't catch the index being used before it is set because it considers there is a reference to the index that could possibly initialize it. Specifically, in the SEARCH statement, it generates a loop:

1) Read U150-ACT-IND-IDX

2) Check the current position in U150-ACT-IND - the WHEN clause (reads U150-ACT-IND-IDX)

3) Increment U150-ACT-IND-IDX

4) Jump to top of loop

In the above loop, since U150-ACT-IND-IDX is initialized in step 3, it is also initialized in step 4. And since step 4 can loop back to step 1, it cannot assume that it is uninitialized at any time it gets to step 1.

-------------------------------
A suggestion - perhaps the compiler could consider the step "1) We read U150-ACT-IND-IDX" as two separate steps 1a and 1b i.e. 1a being the first iteration of the loop and 1b being the target of the step "4) Jump to top of loop". Then INITCHECK could detect the recurring programming error of forgetting to set an index before a SEARCH, because the index would not be set before step 1a. It would only be set before step 1b.