From 5fad073c77b346e3afdd38f4a21e66bb91e2b8b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: dooglus <dooglus@1f10aa63-cdf2-0310-b900-c93c546f37ac>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:32:22 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Initialise the priority when constructing a new Activepoint. 
 Valgrind was complaining before, and random priorities were being written to
 .sif files.

git-svn-id: http://svn.voria.com/code@449 1f10aa63-cdf2-0310-b900-c93c546f37ac
---
 synfig-core/trunk/src/synfig/activepoint.h | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/synfig-core/trunk/src/synfig/activepoint.h b/synfig-core/trunk/src/synfig/activepoint.h
index be45c83..cdd7915 100644
--- a/synfig-core/trunk/src/synfig/activepoint.h
+++ b/synfig-core/trunk/src/synfig/activepoint.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#include <stdio.h>
 /* === S Y N F I G ========================================================= */
 /*!	\file activepoint.h
 **	\brief Template Header
@@ -61,7 +62,8 @@ public:
 	bool operator<(const Time& rhs) { return time<rhs; }
 
 	Activepoint(const Time &time, const bool &state, int p=0): time(time), priority(p),state(state) { }
-	Activepoint() { }
+	//! \todo Should priority be initialised here, or elsewhere?  This avoids a valgrind warning for now.
+	Activepoint(): priority(0) { }
 
 	const Time& get_time()const { return time; }
 	void set_time(const Time& x) { time=x; }
-- 
2.7.4