比较两个双精度浮点数或两个浮点数最有效的方法是什么?
简单地这样做是不正确的:
bool CompareDoubles1 (double A, double B)
{
return A == B;
}
比如:
bool CompareDoubles2 (double A, double B)
{
diff = A - B;
return (diff < EPSILON) && (-diff < EPSILON);
}
似乎是浪费加工。
有人知道更聪明的浮点比较器吗?
当前回答
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 );
}
};
其他回答
在https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/epsilon上找到了另一个有趣的实现
#include <cmath>
#include <limits>
#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
#include <algorithm>
template<class T>
typename std::enable_if<!std::numeric_limits<T>::is_integer, bool>::type
almost_equal(T x, T y, int ulp)
{
// the machine epsilon has to be scaled to the magnitude of the values used
// and multiplied by the desired precision in ULPs (units in the last place)
return std::fabs(x-y) <= std::numeric_limits<T>::epsilon() * std::fabs(x+y) * ulp
// unless the result is subnormal
|| std::fabs(x-y) < std::numeric_limits<T>::min();
}
int main()
{
double d1 = 0.2;
double d2 = 1 / std::sqrt(5) / std::sqrt(5);
std::cout << std::fixed << std::setprecision(20)
<< "d1=" << d1 << "\nd2=" << d2 << '\n';
if(d1 == d2)
std::cout << "d1 == d2\n";
else
std::cout << "d1 != d2\n";
if(almost_equal(d1, d2, 2))
std::cout << "d1 almost equals d2\n";
else
std::cout << "d1 does not almost equal d2\n";
}
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。
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());
}
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。
