[tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit

[Daniel Berlin]

> as far as I understand the code, this should fix the problem.

No, this won't, because it won't walk the statics and their initializers.

Like given:
{
  void (*func_ptr) () * __DTOR_LIST__.107;
  long int T.108;
  long int T.109;
  static void (*func_ptr) () * p = &__DTOR_LIST__ + 4B;

We'll miss the assignment to p.

This is originally why i used walk_tree_without_duplicates in the first
place.