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.

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.

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。

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。

Qt实现了两个函数，也许你可以从中学到一些东西:

static inline bool qFuzzyCompare(double p1, double p2)
{
    return (qAbs(p1 - p2) <= 0.000000000001 * qMin(qAbs(p1), qAbs(p2)));
}

static inline bool qFuzzyCompare(float p1, float p2)
{
    return (qAbs(p1 - p2) <= 0.00001f * qMin(qAbs(p1), qAbs(p2)));
}

您可能需要以下函数，因为

请注意，比较p1或p2为0.0的值是无效的， 也不会比较其中一个值为NaN或无穷大的值。 如果其中一个值总是0.0，则使用qFuzzyIsNull代替。如果一个人 其中的值很可能是0.0，一种解决方案是将两者都加上1.0 值。

static inline bool qFuzzyIsNull(double d)
{
    return qAbs(d) <= 0.000000000001;
}

static inline bool qFuzzyIsNull(float f)
{
    return qAbs(f) <= 0.00001f;
}

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 ;
}