What does Coverity/clang static analysis actually do?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.122.1254431062.20261.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>
Probably more like

Foo f;
createAndSetOutParam(f);
f.bar();

or

Foo f;
if (a > 10) { f = new Foo(10); }
...
if (a > 10) {
   f.bar();
}

How does C# handle the cases above?
<<

Just did a little test:

---------------------------------------
static void Main(string[] args)
{
    Foo f;
    if(args.Count() > 2) { f = new Foo(); }

    if(args.Count() > 2)
    {
       f.bar(); // ERROR: Use of unassgned local variable 'f'
    }

    Foo f2;
    createFoo(ref f2); // ERROR: Use of unassgned local variable 'f2'
    f2.bar();
}

static void createFoo(ref Foo f)
{
    f = new Foo();
}
---------------------------------------------

The first one is rather strange coding though and makes it easy to hide 
errors anyway. And the second one's a tad odd too, plus I don't see any harm 
in solving that with "Foo f2=null": it would at least be a hell of a lot 
better than the compiler doing that very same "=null" automatically. I know 
Walter doesn't agree, but I'd much rather have a few slightly inconvinient 
false positives (or would it really be a false negative?) than even a mere 
possibility for a hidden error.