在c++中获取的可移植方法是

#include <limits>
std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()

然后比较函数变成

#include <cmath>
#include <limits>

bool AreSame(double a, double b) {
    return std::fabs(a - b) < std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon();
}

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

与epsilon值进行比较是大多数人所做的(甚至是在游戏编程中)。

你应该稍微改变你的实现:

bool AreSame(double a, double b)
{
    return fabs(a - b) < EPSILON;
}

编辑:克里斯特在最近的一篇博客文章中添加了一堆关于这个主题的很棒的信息。享受。

我使用这个代码:

bool AlmostEqual(double v1, double v2)
    {
        return (std::fabs(v1 - v2) < std::fabs(std::min(v1, v2)) * std::numeric_limits<double>::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.

我使用以下函数进行浮点数比较:

bool approximatelyEqual(double a, double b)
{
  return fabs(a - b) <= ((fabs(a) < fabs(b) ? fabs(b) : fabs(a)) * std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon());
}