https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> --- Ah, that makes a lot of sense! If testing goes well, I mean to commit the below, which in any case shouldn't hurt: Index: include/bits/atomic_base.h =================================================================== --- include/bits/atomic_base.h (revision 216624) +++ include/bits/atomic_base.h (working copy) @@ -33,7 +33,6 @@ #pragma GCC system_header #include <bits/c++config.h> -#include <stdbool.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <bits/atomic_lockfree_defines.h> Index: include/std/atomic =================================================================== --- include/std/atomic (revision 216624) +++ include/std/atomic (working copy) @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ #if __cplusplus < 201103L # include <bits/c++0x_warning.h> -#endif +#else #include <bits/atomic_base.h> @@ -1129,4 +1129,6 @@ _GLIBCXX_END_NAMESPACE_VERSION } // namespace -#endif +#endif // C++11 + +#endif // _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC