你写的代码有bug:

return (diff < EPSILON) && (-diff > EPSILON);

正确的代码应该是:

return (diff < EPSILON) && (diff > -EPSILON);

(…是的，这是不同的)

我想知道晶圆厂是否会让你在某些情况下失去懒惰的评价。我会说这取决于编译器。你可能想两种都试试。如果它们在平均水平上是相等的，则采用晶圆厂实现。

如果你有一些关于两个浮点数中哪一个比另一个更大的信息，你可以根据比较的顺序来更好地利用惰性求值。

最后，通过内联这个函数可能会得到更好的结果。不过不太可能有太大改善……

编辑:OJ，谢谢你纠正你的代码。我相应地删除了我的评论

你不能用一个固定的。根据double的值，EPSILON会发生变化。

更好的双比较应该是:

bool same(double a, double b)
{
  return std::nextafter(a, std::numeric_limits<double>::lowest()) <= b
    && std::nextafter(a, std::numeric_limits<double>::max()) >= b;
}

你必须为浮点数比较做这个处理，因为浮点数不能像整数类型那样完美地比较。下面是各种比较运算符的函数。

浮点数等于(==)

我也更喜欢减法技术，而不是依赖于fabs()或abs()，但我必须在从64位PC到ATMega328微控制器(Arduino)的各种架构上快速配置它，才能真正看到它是否会产生很大的性能差异。

所以，让我们忘记这些绝对值的东西，只做一些减法和比较!

从微软的例子修改如下:

/// @brief      See if two floating point numbers are approximately equal.
/// @param[in]  a        number 1
/// @param[in]  b        number 2
/// @param[in]  epsilon  A small value such that if the difference between the two numbers is
///                      smaller than this they can safely be considered to be equal.
/// @return     true if the two numbers are approximately equal, and false otherwise
bool is_float_eq(float a, float b, float epsilon) {
    return ((a - b) < epsilon) && ((b - a) < epsilon);
}
bool is_double_eq(double a, double b, double epsilon) {
    return ((a - b) < epsilon) && ((b - a) < epsilon);
}

使用示例:

constexpr float EPSILON = 0.0001; // 1e-4
is_float_eq(1.0001, 0.99998, EPSILON);

我不完全确定，但在我看来，对基于epsilon的方法的一些批评，正如这个高度好评的答案下面的评论所描述的那样，可以通过使用变量epsilon来解决，根据比较的浮点值缩放，像这样:

float a = 1.0001;
float b = 0.99998;
float epsilon = std::max(std::fabs(a), std::fabs(b)) * 1e-4;

is_float_eq(a, b, epsilon);

通过这种方式，epsilon值随浮点值伸缩，因此它的值不会小到不重要。

为了完整起见，让我们添加剩下的:

大于(>)小于(<):

/// @brief      See if floating point number `a` is > `b`
/// @param[in]  a        number 1
/// @param[in]  b        number 2
/// @param[in]  epsilon  a small value such that if `a` is > `b` by this amount, `a` is considered
///             to be definitively > `b`
/// @return     true if `a` is definitively > `b`, and false otherwise
bool is_float_gt(float a, float b, float epsilon) {
    return a > b + epsilon;
}
bool is_double_gt(double a, double b, double epsilon) {
    return a > b + epsilon;
}

/// @brief      See if floating point number `a` is < `b`
/// @param[in]  a        number 1
/// @param[in]  b        number 2
/// @param[in]  epsilon  a small value such that if `a` is < `b` by this amount, `a` is considered
///             to be definitively < `b`
/// @return     true if `a` is definitively < `b`, and false otherwise
bool is_float_lt(float a, float b, float epsilon) {
    return a < b - epsilon;
}
bool is_double_lt(double a, double b, double epsilon) {
    return a < b - epsilon;
}

大于或等于(>=)，小于或等于(<=)

/// @brief      Returns true if `a` is definitively >= `b`, and false otherwise
bool is_float_ge(float a, float b, float epsilon) {
    return a > b - epsilon;
}
bool is_double_ge(double a, double b, double epsilon) {
    return a > b - epsilon;
}

/// @brief      Returns true if `a` is definitively <= `b`, and false otherwise
bool is_float_le(float a, float b, float epsilon) {
    return a < b + epsilon;
}
bool is_double_le(double a, double b, double epsilon) {
    return a < b + epsilon;
}

额外的改进:

A good default value for epsilon in C++ is std::numeric_limits<T>::epsilon(), which evaluates to either 0 or FLT_EPSILON, DBL_EPSILON, or LDBL_EPSILON. See here: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/epsilon. You can also see the float.h header for FLT_EPSILON, DBL_EPSILON, and LDBL_EPSILON. See https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/cfloat and https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cfloat/ You could template the functions instead, to handle all floating point types: float, double, and long double, with type checks for these types via a static_assert() inside the template. Scaling the epsilon value is a good idea to ensure it works for really large and really small a and b values. This article recommends and explains it: http://realtimecollisiondetection.net/blog/?p=89. So, you should scale epsilon by a scaling value equal to max(1.0, abs(a), abs(b)), as that article explains. Otherwise, as a and/or b increase in magnitude, the epsilon would eventually become so small relative to those values that it becomes lost in the floating point error. So, we scale it to become larger in magnitude like they are. However, using 1.0 as the smallest allowed scaling factor for epsilon also ensures that for really small-magnitude a and b values, epsilon itself doesn't get scaled so small that it also becomes lost in the floating point error. So, we limit the minimum scaling factor to 1.0. If you want to "encapsulate" the above functions into a class, don't. Instead, wrap them up in a namespace if you like in order to namespace them. Ex: if you put all of the stand-alone functions into a namespace called float_comparison, then you could access the is_eq() function like this, for instance: float_comparison::is_eq(1.0, 1.5);. It might also be nice to add comparisons against zero, not just comparisons between two values. So, here is a better type of solution with the above improvements in place: namespace float_comparison { /// Scale the epsilon value to become large for large-magnitude a or b, /// but no smaller than 1.0, per the explanation above, to ensure that /// epsilon doesn't ever fall out in floating point error as a and/or b /// increase in magnitude. template<typename T> static constexpr T scale_epsilon(T a, T b, T epsilon = std::numeric_limits<T>::epsilon()) noexcept { static_assert(std::is_floating_point_v<T>, "Floating point comparisons " "require type float, double, or long double."); T scaling_factor; // Special case for when a or b is infinity if (std::isinf(a) || std::isinf(b)) { scaling_factor = 0; } else { scaling_factor = std::max({(T)1.0, std::abs(a), std::abs(b)}); } T epsilon_scaled = scaling_factor * std::abs(epsilon); return epsilon_scaled; } // Compare two values /// Equal: returns true if a is approximately == b, and false otherwise template<typename T> static constexpr bool is_eq(T a, T b, T epsilon = std::numeric_limits<T>::epsilon()) noexcept { static_assert(std::is_floating_point_v<T>, "Floating point comparisons " "require type float, double, or long double."); // test `a == b` first to see if both a and b are either infinity // or -infinity return a == b || std::abs(a - b) <= scale_epsilon(a, b, epsilon); } /* etc. etc.: is_eq() is_ne() is_lt() is_le() is_gt() is_ge() */ // Compare against zero /// Equal: returns true if a is approximately == 0, and false otherwise template<typename T> static constexpr bool is_eq_zero(T a, T epsilon = std::numeric_limits<T>::epsilon()) noexcept { static_assert(std::is_floating_point_v<T>, "Floating point comparisons " "require type float, double, or long double."); return is_eq(a, (T)0.0, epsilon); } /* etc. etc.: is_eq_zero() is_ne_zero() is_lt_zero() is_le_zero() is_gt_zero() is_ge_zero() */ } // namespace float_comparison

参见:

The macro forms of some of the functions above in my repo here: utilities.h. UPDATE 29 NOV 2020: it's a work-in-progress, and I'm going to make it a separate answer when ready, but I've produced a better, scaled-epsilon version of all of the functions in C in this file here: utilities.c. Take a look. ADDITIONAL READING I need to do now have done: Floating-point tolerances revisited, by Christer Ericson. VERY USEFUL ARTICLE! It talks about scaling epsilon in order to ensure it never falls out in floating point error, even for really large-magnitude a and/or b values!

在数值软件中，确实有这样的情况，你需要检查两个浮点数是否完全相等。我就一个类似的问题发表了这篇文章

https://stackoverflow.com/a/10973098/1447411

所以你不能说“CompareDoubles1”是错误的。

这是另一个解:

#include <cmath>
#include <limits>

auto Compare = [](float a, float b, float epsilon = std::numeric_limits<float>::epsilon()){ return (std::fabs(a - b) <= epsilon); };

General-purpose comparison of floating-point numbers is generally meaningless. How to compare really depends on a problem at hand. In many problems, numbers are sufficiently discretized to allow comparing them within a given tolerance. Unfortunately, there are just as many problems, where such trick doesn't really work. For one example, consider working with a Heaviside (step) function of a number in question (digital stock options come to mind) when your observations are very close to the barrier. Performing tolerance-based comparison wouldn't do much good, as it would effectively shift the issue from the original barrier to two new ones. Again, there is no general-purpose solution for such problems and the particular solution might require going as far as changing the numerical method in order to achieve stability.