diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.cpp
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.cpp
@@ -115,7 +115,12 @@
   // This can be an indication of two different things:
   // 1) The loop is not rotated.
   // 2) The loop contains irreducible control flow that involves the latch.
-  if (L->getLoopLatch() != L->getExitingBlock())
+  const BasicBlock *Latch = L->getLoopLatch();
+  if (Latch != L->getExitingBlock())
+    return false;
+
+  // Peeling is only supported if the latch is a conditional branch.
+  if (!isa<BranchInst>(Latch->getTerminator()))
     return false;
 
   return true;
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-conditions.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-conditions.ll
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-conditions.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-conditions.ll
@@ -1140,5 +1140,35 @@
   ret void
 }
 
+; Invoke is not a conditional branch that we can optimize,
+; so this shouldn't be peeled at all.  This is a reproducer
+; for a bug where evaluating the loop would fail an assertion.
+define void @test17() personality i8* undef{
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test17(
+; CHECK-NEXT:  body:
+; CHECK-NEXT:    br label [[LOOP:%.*]]
+; CHECK:       loop:
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CONST:%.*]] = phi i64 [ -33, [[LOOP]] ], [ -20, [[BODY:%.*]] ]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    invoke void @f1()
+; CHECK-NEXT:    to label [[LOOP]] unwind label [[EH_UNW_LOOPEXIT:%.*]]
+; CHECK:       eh.Unw.loopexit:
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[LPAD_LOOPEXIT:%.*]] = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
+; CHECK-NEXT:    catch i8* null
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret void
+;
+body:
+  br label %loop
+
+loop:
+  %const = phi i64 [ -33, %loop ], [ -20, %body ]
+  invoke void @f1()
+  to label %loop unwind label %eh.Unw.loopexit
+
+eh.Unw.loopexit:
+  %lpad.loopexit = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
+  catch i8* null
+  ret void
+}
+
 declare void @init()
 declare void @sink()