有关更深入的方法，请参阅比较浮点数。以下是该链接的代码片段:

// Usable AlmostEqual function    
bool AlmostEqual2sComplement(float A, float B, int maxUlps)    
{    
    // Make sure maxUlps is non-negative and small enough that the    
    // default NAN won't compare as equal to anything.    
    assert(maxUlps > 0 && maxUlps < 4 * 1024 * 1024);    
    int aInt = *(int*)&A;    
    // Make aInt lexicographically ordered as a twos-complement int    
    if (aInt < 0)    
        aInt = 0x80000000 - aInt;    
    // Make bInt lexicographically ordered as a twos-complement int    
    int bInt = *(int*)&B;    
    if (bInt < 0)    
        bInt = 0x80000000 - bInt;    
    int intDiff = abs(aInt - bInt);    
    if (intDiff <= maxUlps)    
        return true;    
    return false;    
}

在这个版本中，你可以检查，这些数字之间的差异并不比某些分数(比如，0.0001%)更大:

bool floatApproximatelyEquals(const float a, const float b) {
    if (b == 0.) return a == 0.; // preventing division by zero
    return abs(1. - a / b) < 1e-6;
}

请注意Sneftel关于浮动可能的分数限制的评论。

还要注意的是，它不同于使用绝对的epsilon的方法——这里你不需要担心“数量级”——数字可能是，比如说1e100，或者1e-100，它们总是会被一致地比较，而且你不必为每一种情况更新epsilon。

我的课程是基于之前发布的答案。非常类似于谷歌的代码，但我使用了一个偏差，将所有NaN值推到0xFF000000以上。这样可以更快地检查NaN。

这段代码是为了演示概念，而不是通用的解决方案。谷歌的代码已经展示了如何计算所有平台特定的值，我不想复制所有这些。我对这段代码做了有限的测试。

typedef unsigned int   U32;
//  Float           Memory          Bias (unsigned)
//  -----           ------          ---------------
//   NaN            0xFFFFFFFF      0xFF800001
//   NaN            0xFF800001      0xFFFFFFFF
//  -Infinity       0xFF800000      0x00000000 ---
//  -3.40282e+038   0xFF7FFFFF      0x00000001    |
//  -1.40130e-045   0x80000001      0x7F7FFFFF    |
//  -0.0            0x80000000      0x7F800000    |--- Valid <= 0xFF000000.
//   0.0            0x00000000      0x7F800000    |    NaN > 0xFF000000
//   1.40130e-045   0x00000001      0x7F800001    |
//   3.40282e+038   0x7F7FFFFF      0xFEFFFFFF    |
//   Infinity       0x7F800000      0xFF000000 ---
//   NaN            0x7F800001      0xFF000001
//   NaN            0x7FFFFFFF      0xFF7FFFFF
//
//   Either value of NaN returns false.
//   -Infinity and +Infinity are not "close".
//   -0 and +0 are equal.
//
class CompareFloat{
public:
    union{
        float     m_f32;
        U32       m_u32;
    };
    static bool   CompareFloat::IsClose( float A, float B, U32 unitsDelta = 4 )
                  {
                      U32    a = CompareFloat::GetBiased( A );
                      U32    b = CompareFloat::GetBiased( B );

                      if ( (a > 0xFF000000) || (b > 0xFF000000) )
                      {
                          return( false );
                      }
                      return( (static_cast<U32>(abs( a - b ))) < unitsDelta );
                  }
    protected:
    static U32    CompareFloat::GetBiased( float f )
                  {
                      U32    r = ((CompareFloat*)&f)->m_u32;

                      if ( r & 0x80000000 )
                      {
                          return( ~r - 0x007FFFFF );
                      }
                      return( r + 0x7F800000 );
                  }
};

使用任何其他建议都要非常小心。这完全取决于上下文。

我花了很长时间在一个系统中追踪错误，该系统假设|a-b|<epsilon，则a==b。潜在的问题是:

The implicit presumption in an algorithm that if a==b and b==c then a==c. Using the same epsilon for lines measured in inches and lines measured in mils (.001 inch). That is a==b but 1000a!=1000b. (This is why AlmostEqual2sComplement asks for the epsilon or max ULPS). The use of the same epsilon for both the cosine of angles and the length of lines! Using such a compare function to sort items in a collection. (In this case using the builtin C++ operator == for doubles produced correct results.)

就像我说的，这完全取决于上下文和a和b的预期大小。

顺便说一下，std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()是“机器epsilon”。它是1.0和下一个用double表示的值之间的差值。我猜它可以用在比较函数中，但只有当期望值小于1时。(这是对@cdv的回答的回应…)

同样，如果你的int算术是双精度的(这里我们在某些情况下使用双精度来保存int值)，你的算术是正确的。例如，4.0/2.0将等同于1.0+1.0。只要你不做导致分数(4.0/3.0)的事情，或者不超出int的大小。

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();
}

Why not perform bitwise XOR? Two floating point numbers are equal if their corresponding bits are equal. I think, the decision to place the exponent bits before mantissa was made to speed up comparison of two floats. I think, many answers here are missing the point of epsilon comparison. Epsilon value only depends on to what precision floating point numbers are compared. For example, after doing some arithmetic with floats you get two numbers: 2.5642943554342 and 2.5642943554345. They are not equal, but for the solution only 3 decimal digits matter so then they are equal: 2.564 and 2.564. In this case you choose epsilon equal to 0.001. Epsilon comparison is also possible with bitwise XOR. Correct me if I am wrong.