Index: lib/CodeGen/ShrinkWrap.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/CodeGen/ShrinkWrap.cpp
+++ lib/CodeGen/ShrinkWrap.cpp
@@ -290,12 +290,30 @@
     // Fix (C).
     if (Save && Restore && Save != Restore &&
         MLI->getLoopFor(Save) != MLI->getLoopFor(Restore)) {
-      if (MLI->getLoopDepth(Save) > MLI->getLoopDepth(Restore))
-        // Push Save outside of this loop.
-        Save = FindIDom<>(*Save, Save->predecessors(), *MDT);
-      else
-        // Push Restore outside of this loop.
-        Restore = FindIDom<>(*Restore, Restore->successors(), *MPDT);
+      if (MLI->getLoopDepth(Save) > MLI->getLoopDepth(Restore)) {
+        // Push Save outside of this loop if immediate dominator is different
+        // from save block. If immediate dominator is not different, bail out. 
+        MachineBasicBlock *IDom = FindIDom<>(*Save, Save->predecessors(), *MDT);
+        if (IDom != Save)
+          Save = IDom;
+        else {
+          Save = NULL;
+          break;
+        }
+      }
+      else {
+        // Push Restore outside of this loop if immediate post-dominator is
+        // different from restore block. If immediate post-dominator is not
+        // different, bail out. 
+        MachineBasicBlock *IPdom =
+          FindIDom<>(*Restore, Restore->successors(), *MPDT);
+        if (IPdom != Restore)
+          Restore = IPdom; 
+        else {
+          Restore = NULL;
+          break;
+        }
+      }      
     }
   }
 }
Index: test/CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-shrink-wrapping.ll
===================================================================
--- test/CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-shrink-wrapping.ll
+++ test/CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-shrink-wrapping.ll
@@ -539,3 +539,32 @@
 declare void @abort() #0
 
 attributes #0 = { noreturn nounwind }
+
+; Make sure that we handle infinite loops properly When checking that the Save
+; and Restore blocks are control flow equivalent, the loop searches for the
+; immediate (post) dominator for the (restore) save blocks. When either the Save
+; or Restore block is located in an infinite loop the only immediate (post)
+; dominator is itself. In this case, we cannot perform shrink wrapping, but we
+; should return gracefully and continue compilation.
+; The only condition for this test is the compilation finishes correctly.
+;
+; CHECK-LABEL: infiniteloop
+; CHECK: ret
+define void @infiniteloop() {
+entry:
+  br i1 undef, label %if.then, label %if.end
+
+if.then:
+  %ptr = alloca i32, i32 4
+  br label %for.body
+
+for.body:                                         ; preds = %for.body, %entry
+  %sum.03 = phi i32 [ 0, %if.then ], [ %add, %for.body ]
+  %call = tail call i32 bitcast (i32 (...)* @something to i32 ()*)()
+  %add = add nsw i32 %call, %sum.03
+  store i32 %add, i32* %ptr
+  br label %for.body
+
+if.end:
+  ret void
+}
Index: test/CodeGen/ARM/arm-shrink-wrapping.ll
===================================================================
--- test/CodeGen/ARM/arm-shrink-wrapping.ll
+++ test/CodeGen/ARM/arm-shrink-wrapping.ll
@@ -534,3 +534,31 @@
 declare void @abort() #0
 
 attributes #0 = { noreturn nounwind }
+
+; Make sure that we handle infinite loops properly When checking that the Save
+; and Restore blocks are control flow equivalent, the loop searches for the
+; immediate (post) dominator for the (restore) save blocks. When either the Save
+; or Restore block is located in an infinite loop the only immediate (post)
+; dominator is itself. In this case, we cannot perform shrink wrapping, but we
+; should return gracefully and continue compilation.
+; The only condition for this test is the compilation finishes correctly.
+; CHECK-LABEL: infiniteloop
+; CHECK: pop
+define void @infiniteloop() {
+entry:
+  br i1 undef, label %if.then, label %if.end
+
+if.then:
+  %ptr = alloca i32, i32 4
+  br label %for.body
+
+for.body:                                         ; preds = %for.body, %entry
+  %sum.03 = phi i32 [ 0, %if.then ], [ %add, %for.body ]
+  %call = tail call i32 asm sideeffect "mov $0, #1", "=r,~{r4}"()
+  %add = add nsw i32 %call, %sum.03
+  store i32 %add, i32* %ptr
+  br label %for.body
+
+if.end:
+  ret void
+}
Index: test/CodeGen/X86/x86-shrink-wrapping.ll
===================================================================
--- test/CodeGen/X86/x86-shrink-wrapping.ll
+++ test/CodeGen/X86/x86-shrink-wrapping.ll
@@ -637,3 +637,33 @@
 declare void @abort() #0
 
 attributes #0 = { noreturn nounwind }
+
+
+; Make sure that we handle infinite loops properly When checking that the Save
+; and Restore blocks are control flow equivalent, the loop searches for the
+; immediate (post) dominator for the (restore) save blocks. When either the Save
+; or Restore block is located in an infinite loop the only immediate (post)
+; dominator is itself. In this case, we cannot perform shrink wrapping, but we
+; should return gracefully and continue compilation.
+; The only condition for this test is the compilation finishes correctly.
+;
+; CHECK-LABEL: infiniteloop
+; CHECK: retq
+define void @infiniteloop() {
+entry:
+  br i1 undef, label %if.then, label %if.end
+
+if.then:
+  %ptr = alloca i32, i32 4
+  br label %for.body
+
+for.body:                                         ; preds = %for.body, %entry
+  %sum.03 = phi i32 [ 0, %if.then ], [ %add, %for.body ]
+  %call = tail call i32 asm "movl $$1, $0", "=r,~{ebx}"()
+  %add = add nsw i32 %call, %sum.03
+  store i32 %add, i32* %ptr
+  br label %for.body
+
+if.end:
+  ret void
+}