Hi,

Consider this test-case:
...
struct ps
{
   int *__restrict__ p;
};

f (struct ps &__restrict__ ps1)
{
   *(ps1.p) = 1;
}
...

Atm (meaning after the fix for PR67666) for this test-case, we register 
two clique/base annotations, one for the load of pointer ps1.p and one 
for the store to that pointer:
...
void f(ps&) (struct psD.2252 & restrict ps1D.2255)
{
   intD.9 * _3;

   # VUSE <.MEM_1(D)>
   # PT = { D.2262 } (nonlocal)
   _3 = MEM[(struct psD.2252 &)ps1_2(D) clique 1 base 1].pD.2254;

   # .MEM_4 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)>
   MEM[(intD.9 *)_3 clique 1 base 2] = 1;
...


If we rewrite the test-case by replacing the struct with its only field, 
we get:
...
f (int *__restrict__ &__restrict__ p)
{
   *p = 1;
}
...

However, in this case, we register only one clique/base annotation, for 
the load of pointer p, but not for the store to pointer p:
...
void f(int* __restrict__&) (intD.9 * restrict & restrict pD.2255)
{
   intD.9 * _3;

   # VUSE <.MEM_1(D)>
   # PT = nonlocal escaped
   _3 = MEM[(intD.9 * restrict &)p_2(D) clique 1 base 1];

   # .MEM_4 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)>
   *_3 = 1;
...


This patch makes sure we register both clique/base annotations for the 
the second example.

Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.

OK for trunk?

Thanks,
- Tom