Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
floating-point-equality [2017/11/21 10:26] – awf | floating-point-equality [2021/03/05 09:13] (current) – awf | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
"Ah, but I want the additional error checking" | "Ah, but I want the additional error checking" | ||
- | Why did the caller | + | Why did the caller |
+ | Is that physically likely in whatever real-world problem you're trying to solve? | ||
+ | If not, one should probably protect at the call site with an assert. | ||
Or maybe it's a precondition of the function call that a not be equal to b, and it's a coding bug if not satisfied. | Or maybe it's a precondition of the function call that a not be equal to b, and it's a coding bug if not satisfied. | ||
<code C++> | <code C++> | ||
double func(double a, double b) { | double func(double a, double b) { | ||
- | | + | |
| | ||
} | } | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | Don't forget to [[assert-always|leave your asserts on in all builds]] unless the profiler tells you otherwise. | + | Don't forget to [[assert-always|leave your asserts on in all builds]] unless the profiler tells you otherwise. |
+ | But hang on, you're on a platform which will give you line number here when you get the divby0 right? | ||
+ | So the assert is superfluous | ||
+ | |||
+ | And there' | ||
+ | <code C++> | ||
+ | void my_unit_test() { | ||
+ | my_matrix< | ||
+ | TEST_ASSERT_EQ_APPROX(a(0, | ||
+ | TEST_ASSERT_EQ(a(0, | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | You may worry about excess precision on x86, but there' | ||
==== But my case is more subtle than that ==== | ==== But my case is more subtle than that ==== | ||
Line 57: | Line 71: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | Even here, you can think about what a better value to compare to might be. First note that sin(x)/x works fine for all normalized | + | Even here, you can think about what a better value to compare to might be. First note that sin(x)/x works fine for all floats except zero, so you can avoid a dependency on fabs and a definition of epsilon by just comparing to zero. |
But perhaps the profiler has told you that a big chunk of program time is spent in computing sin() and dividing, and furthermore you know that most times it's called with values near zero. Well then, let's do what we do with any special function that goes slow: chop up the domain and special case. | But perhaps the profiler has told you that a big chunk of program time is spent in computing sin() and dividing, and furthermore you know that most times it's called with values near zero. Well then, let's do what we do with any special function that goes slow: chop up the domain and special case. | ||
Line 73: | Line 87: | ||
} | } | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | It's a good idea then to write a blog post about the issue, because Toby Sharp might comment (see below) and point out that there is a much better choice: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > "... since we need some kind of test for x=0 anyway, I don't see why we shouldn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <code C++> | ||
+ | float sinc(float x) { | ||
+ | // Toby's threshold, determined through binary search as the best value for minimizing absolute error | ||
+ | if (std:: | ||
+ | return 1.0f - (x * x) * (1.0f / 6.0f); | ||
+ | else | ||
+ | return std::sin(x) / x; | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
=== And templates? === | === And templates? === | ||
Line 93: | Line 122: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | ~~DISCUSSION~~ | + | See also |
+ | * https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ~~DISCUSSION:closed~~ |