Sometimes (haven't been able to identify the cause) binaries are built with relocatable text segments that are in fact empty.  This causes the QA warning to kick in:

WARNING: QA Issue: ELF binary '/data/oc/work/i586-oe-linux/flex/2.5.38-r0/packages-split/flex-ptest/usr/lib/flex/ptest/test-c++-multiple-scanners/test-c++-multiple-scanners' has relocations in .text
WARNING: QA Issue: ELF binary '/data/oc/work/i586-oe-linux/util-linux/2.24.1-r0/packages-split/util-linux/bin/more.util-linux' has relocations in .text
WARNING: QA Issue: ELF binary '/data/oc/work/i586-oe-linux/coreutils/8.22-r0/packages-split/coreutils/bin/sync.coreutils' has relocations in .text

$ objdump  -p /data/oc/work/i586-oe-linux/coreutils/8.22-r0/packages-split/coreutils/bin/sync.coreutils|grep TEXTREL
  TEXTREL              0x00000000

The segment is present, but empty.  scanelf also agrees this isn't right:

$ scanelf -qT /data/oc/work/i586-oe-linux/coreutils/8.22-r0/packages-split/coreutils/bin/sync.coreutils
scanelf: scanelf_file_textrels(): ELF /data/oc/work/i586-oe-linux/coreutils/8.22-r0/packages-split/coreutils/bin/sync.coreutils has TEXTREL markings but doesnt appear to have any real TEXTREL's !?


Would the presence of relocatable text segments cause a performance hit on loading even if empty (so we should fix gcc), or does this have no performance hit so we should check for empty segments in the QA check?