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!

我对任何涉及浮点减法的答案都非常谨慎(例如，fabs(a-b) < epsilon)。首先，浮点数在更大的量级上变得更稀疏，在足够大的量级上，当间隔大于时，您可能只需要做a == b。其次，减去两个非常接近的浮点数(因为您正在寻找接近相等的浮点数)正是您得到灾难性抵消的方式。

虽然不能移植，但我认为grom的答案在避免这些问题方面做得最好。

不幸的是，即使您的“浪费”代码也是不正确的。EPSILON是可以添加到1.0并更改其值的最小值。值1.0非常重要——更大的数字在添加到EPSILON时不会改变。现在，您可以将这个值缩放到您正在比较的数字，以判断它们是否不同。比较两个双精度对象的正确表达式是:

if (fabs(a - b) <= DBL_EPSILON * fmax(fabs(a), fabs(b)))
{
    // ...
}

这是最小值。一般来说，你会想要在计算中考虑噪声，并忽略一些最不重要的位，所以更现实的比较应该是这样的:

if (fabs(a - b) <= 16 * DBL_EPSILON * fmax(fabs(a), fabs(b)))
{
    // ...
}

如果比较性能对您非常重要，并且您知道值的范围，那么您应该使用定点数字。

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。

这取决于你想要的比较有多精确。如果您想对完全相同的数字进行比较，那么只需使用==。(除非你真的想要完全相同的数字，否则你几乎不会想这么做。)在任何一个不错的平台上，你都可以做到以下几点:

diff= a - b; return fabs(diff)<EPSILON;

因为晶圆厂往往很快。我说的快是指它基本上是一个位与，所以它最好快。

用于比较双精度和浮点数的整数技巧很好，但往往会使各种CPU管道更难有效处理。现在，由于使用堆栈作为频繁使用的值的临时存储区域，在某些有序架构上它肯定不会更快。(在乎的人可以去Load-hit-store。)