Index: llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SimpleLoopUnswitch.cpp
===================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SimpleLoopUnswitch.cpp
+++ llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SimpleLoopUnswitch.cpp
@@ -17,9 +17,11 @@
 #include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
 #include "llvm/ADT/Twine.h"
 #include "llvm/Analysis/AssumptionCache.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/CFG.h"
 #include "llvm/Analysis/CodeMetrics.h"
 #include "llvm/Analysis/LoopAnalysisManager.h"
 #include "llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopIterator.h"
 #include "llvm/Analysis/LoopPass.h"
 #include "llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h"
 #include "llvm/IR/Constant.h"
@@ -1938,6 +1940,17 @@
   if (UnswitchCandidates.empty())
     return Changed;
 
+  // Check if there are irreducible CFG cycles in this loop. If so, we cannot
+  // easily unswitch non-trivial edges out of the loop. Doing so might turn the
+  // irreducible control flow into reducible control flow and introduce new
+  // loops "out of thin air". If we ever discover important use cases for doing
+  // this, we can add support to loop unswitch, but it is a lot of complexity
+  // for what seems little or no real world benifit.
+  LoopBlocksRPO RPOT(&L);
+  RPOT.perform(&LI);
+  if (containsIrreducibleCFG<const BasicBlock *>(RPOT, LI))
+    return Changed;
+
   DEBUG(dbgs() << "Considering " << UnswitchCandidates.size()
                << " non-trivial loop invariant conditions for unswitching.\n");
 
Index: llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SimpleLoopUnswitch/nontrivial-unswitch.ll
===================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SimpleLoopUnswitch/nontrivial-unswitch.ll
+++ llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SimpleLoopUnswitch/nontrivial-unswitch.ll
@@ -2350,3 +2350,33 @@
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    %[[LCSSA:.*]] = phi i32 [ %[[V]], %loop_begin ]
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    ret i32 %[[LCSSA]]
 }
+
+; Negative test: we do not switch when the loop contains unstructured control
+; flows as it would significantly complicate the process as novel loops might
+; be formed, etc.
+define void @test_no_unswitch_unstructured_cfg(i1* %ptr, i1 %cond) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_no_unswitch_unstructured_cfg(
+entry:
+  br label %loop_begin
+
+loop_begin:
+  br i1 %cond, label %loop_left, label %loop_right
+
+loop_left:
+  %v1 = load i1, i1* %ptr
+  br i1 %v1, label %loop_right, label %loop_merge
+
+loop_right:
+  %v2 = load i1, i1* %ptr
+  br i1 %v2, label %loop_left, label %loop_merge
+
+loop_merge:
+  %v3 = load i1, i1* %ptr
+  br i1 %v3, label %loop_latch, label %loop_exit
+
+loop_latch:
+  br label %loop_begin
+
+loop_exit:
+  ret void
+}