意识到这是一个老话题，但这篇文章是我发现的关于比较浮点数的最直接的文章之一，如果你想探索更多，它也有更详细的参考资料，它的主要站点涵盖了处理浮点数的完整范围的问题《浮点指南:比较》。

我们可以在浮点公差中找到一篇更实用的文章，并指出有绝对公差测试，在c++中归结为:

bool absoluteToleranceCompare(double x, double y)
{
    return std::fabs(x - y) <= std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon() ;
}

及相对耐量试验:

bool relativeToleranceCompare(double x, double y)
{
    double maxXY = std::max( std::fabs(x) , std::fabs(y) ) ;
    return std::fabs(x - y) <= std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()*maxXY ;
}

文章指出，当x和y较大时，绝对检验失败;当x和y较小时，相对检验失败。假设绝对耐受性和相对耐受性是相同的，综合测试将是这样的:

bool combinedToleranceCompare(double x, double y)
{
    double maxXYOne = std::max( { 1.0, std::fabs(x) , std::fabs(y) } ) ;

    return std::fabs(x - y) <= std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()*maxXYOne ;
}

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。)

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。

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;    
}

就数量的规模而言:

如果在某种物理意义上，ε是量的大小(即相对值)的一小部分，而A和B类型在同一意义上具有可比性，那么我认为，下面的观点是相当正确的:

#include <limits>
#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>

#include <cmath>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cassert>

template< typename A, typename B >
inline
bool close_enough(A const & a, B const & b,
                  typename std::common_type< A, B >::type const & epsilon)
{
    using std::isless;
    assert(isless(0, epsilon)); // epsilon is a part of the whole quantity
    assert(isless(epsilon, 1));
    using std::abs;
    auto const delta = abs(a - b);
    auto const x = abs(a);
    auto const y = abs(b);
    // comparable generally and |a - b| < eps * (|a| + |b|) / 2
    return isless(epsilon * y, x) && isless(epsilon * x, y) && isless((delta + delta) / (x + y), epsilon);
}

int main()
{
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(0.9, 1.0, 0.1) << std::endl;
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(1.0, 1.1, 0.1) << std::endl;
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(1.1,    1.2,    0.01) << std::endl;
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(1.0001, 1.0002, 0.01) << std::endl;
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << close_enough(1.0, 0.01, 0.1) << std::endl;
    return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

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.