Index: lib/Transforms/Scalar/PlaceSafepoints.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Transforms/Scalar/PlaceSafepoints.cpp
+++ lib/Transforms/Scalar/PlaceSafepoints.cpp
@@ -431,6 +431,13 @@
         if (II->getIntrinsicID() == Intrinsic::assume) {
           continue;
         }
+        // llvm.frameescape() intrinsic is not a real call. The intrinsic can 
+        // exist only in the entry block.
+        // Inserting a statepoint before llvm.frameescape() may split the 
+        // entry block, and push the intrinsic out of the entry block.
+        if (II->getIntrinsicID() == Intrinsic::frameescape) {
+          continue;
+        }
       }
       break;
     }
Index: test/CodeGen/X86/statepoint-frameescape.ll
===================================================================
--- /dev/null
+++ test/CodeGen/X86/statepoint-frameescape.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+; RUN: opt %s -S -place-safepoints | FileCheck %s
+
+declare void @llvm.frameescape(...)
+
+; Do we insert the entry safepoint after the frameescape intrinsic?
+define void @parent() gc "statepoint-example" {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @parent
+entry:
+; CHECK-LABEL: entry
+  %ptr = alloca i32
+; CHECK-NOT: statepoint
+  call void (...)* @llvm.frameescape(i32* %ptr)
+; CHECK: statepoint
+  ret void
+}
+
+; This function is inlined when inserting a poll.  To avoid recursive 
+; issues, make sure we don't place safepoints in it.
+declare void @do_safepoint()
+define void @gc.safepoint_poll() {
+; CHECK-LABEL: gc.safepoint_poll
+; CHECK-LABEL: entry
+; CHECK-NEXT: do_safepoint
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret void 
+entry:
+  call void @do_safepoint()
+  ret void
+}