Index: lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp
+++ lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp
@@ -2179,6 +2179,10 @@
 
   MadeChange = false;
   for (Function::iterator BI = F.begin(), BE = F.end(); BI != BE; ++BI) {
+    // Skip dead basic blocks.
+    if (RankMap.count(&*BI) == 0)
+      continue;
+
     // Optimize every instruction in the basic block.
     for (BasicBlock::iterator II = BI->begin(), IE = BI->end(); II != IE;)
       if (isInstructionTriviallyDead(&*II)) {
Index: test/Transforms/Reassociate/deadcode.ll
===================================================================
--- /dev/null
+++ test/Transforms/Reassociate/deadcode.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+; RUN: opt < %s -reassociate -disable-output
+
+; It has been detected that dead loops like the one in this test case can be
+; created by -jump-threading (it was detected by a csmith generated program).
+;
+; According to -verify this is valid input (even if it could be discussed if
+; the dead loop really satisfies SSA form).
+;
+; The problem found was that the -reassociate pass ends up in an infinite loop
+; when analysing the 'deadloop1' basic block. See "Bugzilla - Bug 30818".
+define void @deadloop1() {
+  br label %endlabel
+
+deadloop1:
+  %1 = xor i32 %2, 7
+  %2 = xor i32 %1, 8
+  br label %deadloop1
+
+endlabel:
+  ret void
+}
+
+
+; Another example showing that dead code could result in infinite loops in
+; reassociate pass. See "Bugzilla - Bug 30818".
+define void @deadloop2() {
+  br label %endlabel
+
+deadloop2:
+  %1 = and i32 %2, 7
+  %2 = and i32 %3, 8
+  %3 = and i32 %1, 6
+  br label %deadloop2
+
+endlabel:
+  ret void
+}