Index: lib/Transforms/Scalar/GVN.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Transforms/Scalar/GVN.cpp
+++ lib/Transforms/Scalar/GVN.cpp
@@ -2189,9 +2189,25 @@
   unsigned NumWithout = 0;
   BasicBlock *PREPred = nullptr;
   BasicBlock *CurrentBlock = CurInst->getParent();
+  bool IsSafeToSpeculativelyExecute = isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(CurInst);
+
+  // Make sure that there are no instructions with implicit control flow that
+  // could prevent us from reaching our instruction.
+  if (!IsSafeToSpeculativelyExecute) {
+    auto It = FirstImplicitControlFlowInsts.find(CurrentBlock);
+    if (It != FirstImplicitControlFlowInsts.end()) {
+      assert(It->second->getParent() == CurrentBlock &&
+             "Implicit control flow map broken?");
+      if (OI->dominates(It->second, CurInst))
+        return false;
+    }
+  }
 
   SmallVector<std::pair<Value *, BasicBlock *>, 8> predMap;
   for (BasicBlock *P : predecessors(CurrentBlock)) {
+    // Don't PRE across predecessors with implicit control flow.
+    if (!IsSafeToSpeculativelyExecute && FirstImplicitControlFlowInsts.count(P))
+      return false;
     // We're not interested in PRE where blocks with predecessors that are
     // not reachable.
     if (!DT->isReachableFromEntry(P)) {
Index: test/Transforms/GVN/PRE/local-pre.ll
===================================================================
--- test/Transforms/GVN/PRE/local-pre.ll
+++ test/Transforms/GVN/PRE/local-pre.ll
@@ -1,6 +1,13 @@
 ; RUN: opt < %s -gvn -enable-pre -S | FileCheck %s
 
+declare void @may_exit() nounwind
+
+declare void @may_exit_1(i32) nounwind
+
 define i32 @main(i32 %p, i32 %q) {
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: @main(
+
 block1:
     %cmp = icmp eq i32 %p, %q 
 	br i1 %cmp, label %block2, label %block3
@@ -20,3 +27,92 @@
 ; CHECK: %b.pre-phi = phi i32 [ %.pre, %block3 ], [ %a, %block2 ]
 ; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 %b.pre-phi
 }
+
+; Don't PRE across implicit control flow.
+define i32 @test2(i32 %p, i32 %q) {
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test2
+; CHECK: block1:
+
+block1:
+  %cmp = icmp eq i32 %p, %q
+  br i1 %cmp, label %block2, label %block3
+
+block2:
+ %a = sdiv i32 %p, %q
+ br label %block4
+
+block3:
+  br label %block4
+
+; CHECK: block4:
+; CHECK-NEXT: call void @may_exit(
+; CHECK-NEXT: %b = sdiv
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 %b
+
+block4:
+  call void @may_exit() nounwind
+  %b = sdiv i32 %p, %q
+  ret i32 %b
+}
+
+; Don't PRE across implicit control flow.
+define i32 @test3(i32 %p, i32 %q, i1 %r) {
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test3
+; CHECK: block1:
+
+block1:
+  br i1 %r, label %block2, label %block3
+
+block2:
+ %a = sdiv i32 %p, %q
+ br label %block4
+
+block3:
+  br label %block4
+
+block4:
+
+; CHECK: block4:
+; CHECK-NEXT: phi i32
+; CHECK-NEXT: call void @may_exit_1(
+; CHECK-NEXT: %b = sdiv
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 %b
+
+  %phi = phi i32 [ 0, %block3 ], [ %a, %block2 ]
+  call void @may_exit_1(i32 %phi) nounwind
+  %b = sdiv i32 %p, %q
+  ret i32 %b
+
+}
+
+; It's OK to PRE an instruction that is guaranteed to be safe to execute
+; speculatively.
+; TODO: Does it make any sense in this case?
+define i32 @test4(i32 %p, i32 %q) {
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test4
+; CHECK: block1:
+
+block1:
+  %cmp = icmp eq i32 %p, %q
+  br i1 %cmp, label %block2, label %block3
+
+block2:
+ %a = sdiv i32 %p, 6
+ br label %block4
+
+block3:
+  br label %block4
+
+; CHECK: block4:
+; CHECK-NEXT: %b.pre-phi = phi i32
+; CHECK-NEXT: call void @may_exit(
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 %b
+
+block4:
+  call void @may_exit() nounwind
+  %b = sdiv i32 %p, 6
+  ret i32 %b
+}