cmd/cgo: add missing parameter list for function _cgo_wait_runtime_init_done

[phst]

Fixes #29879

[gopherbot]

This PR (HEAD: 186863a) has been imported to Gerrit for code review.

Please visit https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/159178 to see it.

Tip: You can toggle comments from me using the comments slash command (e.g. /comments off)
See the Wiki page for more info

[gopherbot]

Message from Gobot Gobot:

Patch Set 1:

Congratulations on opening your first change. Thank you for your contribution!

Next steps:
Within the next week or so, a maintainer will review your change and provide
feedback. See https://golang.org/doc/contribute.html#review for more info and
tips to get your patch through code review.

Most changes in the Go project go through a few rounds of revision. This can be
surprising to people new to the project. The careful, iterative review process
is our way of helping mentor contributors and ensuring that their contributions
have a lasting impact.

During May-July and Nov-Jan the Go project is in a code freeze, during which
little code gets reviewed or merged. If a reviewer responds with a comment like
R=go1.11, it means that this CL will be reviewed as part of the next development
cycle. See https://golang.org/s/release for more details.

---

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/159178.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

[gopherbot]

Message from Ian Lance Taylor:

Patch Set 1:

R=go1.13

---

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/159178.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

[gopherbot]

Message from Philipp Stephani:

Patch Set 1: Code-Review+1

Not sure why I'm set as reviewer, but LGTM ;)

---

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/159178.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

[gopherbot]

Message from Emmanuel Odeke:

Patch Set 1: Run-TryBot+1 Code-Review+1

Thank you for this change Philipp!

Technically this shouldn't be a problem but I wonder if running this
updated code with older generated files will cause a problem?

IIRC foo() and foo(void) could be interchangeable but with
foo() as a forward declaration, one can even do foo(int a, int b)
in the final implementation, hence me wondering.

Anyways, I'll defer to Ian for the final LGTM!

---

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/159178.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

[gopherbot]

Message from Gobot Gobot:

Patch Set 1:

TryBots beginning. Status page: https://farmer.golang.org/try?commit=d842bf84

---

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/159178.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

[gopherbot]

Message from Gobot Gobot:

Patch Set 1: TryBot-Result+1

TryBots are happy.

---

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/159178.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

[gopherbot]

Message from Philipp Stephani:

Patch Set 1:

Patch Set 1: Run-TryBot+1 Code-Review+1

Thank you for this change Philipp!

Technically this shouldn't be a problem but I wonder if running this
updated code with older generated files will cause a problem?

IIRC foo() and foo(void) could be interchangeable but with
foo() as a forward declaration, one can even do foo(int a, int b)
in the final implementation, hence me wondering.

I think this is extremely unlikely. This only affects an internal function; to trigger the behavior you describe the old implementation would have to define and call the function with the correct (undeclared) arguments, without anybody noticing the non-matching declaration.

---

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/159178.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

[gopherbot]

This PR is being closed because golang.org/cl/159178 has been merged.