How can I round a float value (such as 37.777779) to two decimal places (37.78) in C?
If you just want to round the number for output purposes, then the "%.2f" format string is indeed the correct answer. However, if you actually want to round the floating point value for further computation, something like the following works:
#include <math.h>
float val = 37.777779;
float rounded_down = floorf(val * 100) / 100; /* Result: 37.77 */
float nearest = roundf(val * 100) / 100; /* Result: 37.78 */
float rounded_up = ceilf(val * 100) / 100; /* Result: 37.78 */
Notice that there are three different rounding rules you might want to choose: round down (ie, truncate after two decimal places), rounded to nearest, and round up. Usually, you want round to nearest.
As several others have pointed out, due to the quirks of floating point representation, these rounded values may not be exactly the "obvious" decimal values, but they will be very very close.
For much (much!) more information on rounding, and especially on tie-breaking rules for rounding to nearest, see the Wikipedia article on Rounding.
Using %.2f in printf. It only print 2 decimal points.
Example:
printf("%.2f", 37.777779);
Output:
37.77
Assuming you're talking about round the value for printing, then Andrew Coleson and AraK's answer are correct:
printf("%.2f", 37.777779);
But note that if you're aiming to round the number to exactly 37.78 for internal use (eg to compare against another value), then this isn't a good idea, due to the way floating point numbers work: you usually don't want to do equality comparisons for floating point, instead use a target value +/- a sigma value. Or encode the number as a string with a known precision, and compare that.
See the link in Greg Hewgill's answer to a related question, which also covers why you shouldn't use floating point for financial calculations.
How about this:
float value = 37.777779;
float rounded = ((int)(value * 100 + .5) / 100.0);
printf("%.2f", 37.777779);
If you want to write to C-string:
char number[24]; // dummy size, you should take care of the size!
sprintf(number, "%.2f", 37.777779);
Always use the printf family of functions for this. Even if you want to get the value as a float, you're best off using snprintf to get the rounded value as a string and then parsing it back with atof:
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
double dround(double val, int dp) {
int charsNeeded = 1 + snprintf(NULL, 0, "%.*f", dp, val);
char *buffer = malloc(charsNeeded);
snprintf(buffer, charsNeeded, "%.*f", dp, val);
double result = atof(buffer);
free(buffer);
return result;
}
I say this because the approach shown by the currently top-voted answer and several others here -
multiplying by 100, rounding to the nearest integer, and then dividing by 100 again - is flawed in two ways:
For some values, it will round in the wrong direction because the multiplication by 100 changes the decimal digit determining the rounding direction from a 4 to a 5 or vice versa, due to the imprecision of floating point numbers
For some values, multiplying and then dividing by 100 doesn't round-trip, meaning that even if no rounding takes place the end result will be wrong
To illustrate the first kind of error - the rounding direction sometimes being wrong - try running this program:
int main(void) {
// This number is EXACTLY representable as a double
double x = 0.01499999999999999944488848768742172978818416595458984375;
printf("x: %.50f\n", x);
double res1 = dround(x, 2);
double res2 = round(100 * x) / 100;
printf("Rounded with snprintf: %.50f\n", res1);
printf("Rounded with round, then divided: %.50f\n", res2);
}
You'll see this output:
x: 0.01499999999999999944488848768742172978818416595459
Rounded with snprintf: 0.01000000000000000020816681711721685132943093776703
Rounded with round, then divided: 0.02000000000000000041633363423443370265886187553406
Note that the value we started with was less than 0.015, and so the mathematically correct answer when rounding it to 2 decimal places is 0.01. Of course, 0.01 is not exactly representable as a double, but we expect our result to be the double nearest to 0.01. Using snprintf gives us that result, but using round(100 * x) / 100 gives us 0.02, which is wrong. Why? Because 100 * x gives us exactly 1.5 as the result. Multiplying by 100 thus changes the correct direction to round in.
To illustrate the second kind of error - the result sometimes being wrong due to * 100 and / 100 not truly being inverses of each other - we can do a similar exercise with a very big number:
int main(void) {
double x = 8631192423766613.0;
printf("x: %.1f\n", x);
double res1 = dround(x, 2);
double res2 = round(100 * x) / 100;
printf("Rounded with snprintf: %.1f\n", res1);
printf("Rounded with round, then divided: %.1f\n", res2);
}
Our number now doesn't even have a fractional part; it's an integer value, just stored with type double. So the result after rounding it should be the same number we started with, right?
If you run the program above, you'll see:
x: 8631192423766613.0
Rounded with snprintf: 8631192423766613.0
Rounded with round, then divided: 8631192423766612.0
Oops. Our snprintf method returns the right result again, but the multiply-then-round-then-divide approach fails. That's because the mathematically correct value of 8631192423766613.0 * 100, 863119242376661300.0, is not exactly representable as a double; the closest value is 863119242376661248.0. When you divide that back by 100, you get 8631192423766612.0 - a different number to the one you started with.
Hopefully that's a sufficient demonstration that using roundf for rounding to a number of decimal places is broken, and that you should use snprintf instead. If that feels like a horrible hack to you, perhaps you'll be reassured by the knowledge that it's basically what CPython does.
Also, if you're using C++, you can just create a function like this:
string prd(const double x, const int decDigits) {
stringstream ss;
ss << fixed;
ss.precision(decDigits); // set # places after decimal
ss << x;
return ss.str();
}
You can then output any double myDouble with n places after the decimal point with code such as this:
std::cout << prd(myDouble,n);
There isn't a way to round a float to another float because the rounded float may not be representable (a limitation of floating-point numbers). For instance, say you round 37.777779 to 37.78, but the nearest representable number is 37.781.
However, you can "round" a float by using a format string function.
You can still use:
float ceilf(float x); // don't forget #include <math.h> and link with -lm.
example:
float valueToRound = 37.777779;
float roundedValue = ceilf(valueToRound * 100) / 100;
In C++ (or in C with C-style casts), you could create the function:
/* Function to control # of decimal places to be output for x */
double showDecimals(const double& x, const int& numDecimals) {
int y=x;
double z=x-y;
double m=pow(10,numDecimals);
double q=z*m;
double r=round(q);
return static_cast<double>(y)+(1.0/m)*r;
}
Then std::cout << showDecimals(37.777779,2); would produce: 37.78.
Obviously you don't really need to create all 5 variables in that function, but I leave them there so you can see the logic. There are probably simpler solutions, but this works well for me--especially since it allows me to adjust the number of digits after the decimal place as I need.
Use float roundf(float x).
"The round functions round their argument to the nearest integer value in floating-point format, rounding halfway cases away from zero, regardless of the current rounding direction." C11dr §7.12.9.5
#include <math.h>
float y = roundf(x * 100.0f) / 100.0f;
Depending on your float implementation, numbers that may appear to be half-way are not. as floating-point is typically base-2 oriented. Further, precisely rounding to the nearest 0.01 on all "half-way" cases is most challenging.
void r100(const char *s) {
float x, y;
sscanf(s, "%f", &x);
y = round(x*100.0)/100.0;
printf("%6s %.12e %.12e\n", s, x, y);
}
int main(void) {
r100("1.115");
r100("1.125");
r100("1.135");
return 0;
}
1.115 1.115000009537e+00 1.120000004768e+00
1.125 1.125000000000e+00 1.129999995232e+00
1.135 1.134999990463e+00 1.139999985695e+00
Although "1.115" is "half-way" between 1.11 and 1.12, when converted to float, the value is 1.115000009537... and is no longer "half-way", but closer to 1.12 and rounds to the closest float of 1.120000004768...
"1.125" is "half-way" between 1.12 and 1.13, when converted to float, the value is exactly 1.125 and is "half-way". It rounds toward 1.13 due to ties to even rule and rounds to the closest float of 1.129999995232...
Although "1.135" is "half-way" between 1.13 and 1.14, when converted to float, the value is 1.134999990463... and is no longer "half-way", but closer to 1.13 and rounds to the closest float of 1.129999995232...
If code used
y = roundf(x*100.0f)/100.0f;
Although "1.135" is "half-way" between 1.13 and 1.14, when converted to float, the value is 1.134999990463... and is no longer "half-way", but closer to 1.13 but incorrectly rounds to float of 1.139999985695... due to the more limited precision of float vs. double. This incorrect value may be viewed as correct, depending on coding goals.
Code definition :
#define roundz(x,d) ((floor(((x)*pow(10,d))+.5))/pow(10,d))
Results :
a = 8.000000
sqrt(a) = r = 2.828427
roundz(r,2) = 2.830000
roundz(r,3) = 2.828000
roundz(r,5) = 2.828430
double f_round(double dval, int n)
{
char l_fmtp[32], l_buf[64];
char *p_str;
sprintf (l_fmtp, "%%.%df", n);
if (dval>=0)
sprintf (l_buf, l_fmtp, dval);
else
sprintf (l_buf, l_fmtp, dval);
return ((double)strtod(l_buf, &p_str));
}
Here n is the number of decimals
example:
double d = 100.23456;
printf("%f", f_round(d, 4));// result: 100.2346
printf("%f", f_round(d, 2));// result: 100.23
I made this macro for rounding float numbers.
Add it in your header / being of file
#define ROUNDF(f, c) (((float)((int)((f) * (c))) / (c)))
Here is an example:
float x = ROUNDF(3.141592, 100)
x equals 3.14 :)
Let me first attempt to justify my reason for adding yet another answer to this question. In an ideal world, rounding is not really a big deal. However, in real systems, you may need to contend with several issues that can result in rounding that may not be what you expect. For example, you may be performing financial calculations where final results are rounded and displayed to users as 2 decimal places; these same values are stored with fixed precision in a database that may include more than 2 decimal places (for various reasons; there is no optimal number of places to keep...depends on specific situations each system must support, e.g. tiny items whose prices are fractions of a penny per unit); and, floating point computations performed on values where the results are plus/minus epsilon. I have been confronting these issues and evolving my own strategy over the years. I won't claim that I have faced every scenario or have the best answer, but below is an example of my approach so far that overcomes these issues:
Suppose 6 decimal places is regarded as sufficient precision for calculations on floats/doubles (an arbitrary decision for the specific application), using the following rounding function/method:
double Round(double x, int p)
{
if (x != 0.0) {
return ((floor((fabs(x)*pow(double(10.0),p))+0.5))/pow(double(10.0),p))*(x/fabs(x));
} else {
return 0.0;
}
}
Rounding to 2 decimal places for presentation of a result can be performed as:
double val;
// ...perform calculations on val
String(Round(Round(Round(val,8),6),2));
For val = 6.825, result is 6.83 as expected.
For val = 6.824999, result is 6.82. Here the assumption is that the calculation resulted in exactly 6.824999 and the 7th decimal place is zero.
For val = 6.8249999, result is 6.83. The 7th decimal place being 9 in this case causes the Round(val,6) function to give the expected result. For this case, there could be any number of trailing 9s.
For val = 6.824999499999, result is 6.83. Rounding to the 8th decimal place as a first step, i.e. Round(val,8), takes care of the one nasty case whereby a calculated floating point result calculates to 6.8249995, but is internally represented as 6.824999499999....
Finally, the example from the question...val = 37.777779 results in 37.78.
This approach could be further generalized as:
double val;
// ...perform calculations on val
String(Round(Round(Round(val,N+2),N),2));
where N is precision to be maintained for all intermediate calculations on floats/doubles. This works on negative values as well. I do not know if this approach is mathematically correct for all possibilities.
...or you can do it the old-fashioned way without any libraries:
float a = 37.777779;
int b = a; // b = 37
float c = a - b; // c = 0.777779
c *= 100; // c = 77.777863
int d = c; // d = 77;
a = b + d / (float)100; // a = 37.770000;
That of course if you want to remove the extra information from the number.
this function takes the number and precision and returns the rounded off number
float roundoff(float num,int precision)
{
int temp=(int )(num*pow(10,precision));
int num1=num*pow(10,precision+1);
temp*=10;
temp+=5;
if(num1>=temp)
num1+=10;
num1/=10;
num1*=10;
num=num1/pow(10,precision+1);
return num;
}
it converts the floating point number into int by left shifting the point and checking for the greater than five condition.
This question already has answers here:
If operator< works properly for floating-point types, why can't we use it for equality testing?
(5 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Let:
double d = 0.1;
float f = 0.1;
should the expression
(f > d)
return true or false?
Empirically, the answer is true. However, I expected it to be false.
As 0.1 cannot be perfectly represented in binary, while double has 15 to 16 decimal digits of precision, and float has only 7. So, they both are less than 0.1, while the double is more close to 0.1.
I need an exact explanation for the true.
I'd say the answer depends on the rounding mode when converting the double to float. float has 24 binary bits of precision, and double has 53. In binary, 0.1 is:
0.1₁₀ = 0.0001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011…₂
^ ^ ^ ^
1 10 20 24
So if we round up at the 24th digit, we'll get
0.1₁₀ ~ 0.000110011001100110011001101
which is greater than the exact value and the more precise approximation at 53 digits.
The number 0.1 will be rounded to the closest floating-point representation with the given precision. This approximation might be either greater than or less than 0.1, so without looking at the actual values, you can't predict whether the single precision or double precision approximation is greater.
Here's what the double precision value gets rounded to (using a Python interpreter):
>>> "%.55f" % 0.1
'0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625'
And here's the single precision value:
>>> "%.55f" % numpy.float32("0.1")
'0.1000000014901161193847656250000000000000000000000000000'
So you can see that the single precision approximation is greater.
If you convert .1 to binary you get:
0.000110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100...
repeating forever
Mapping to data types, you get:
float(.1) = %.00011001100110011001101
^--- note rounding
double(.1) = %.0001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010
Convert that to base 10:
float(.1) = .10000002384185791015625
double(.1) = .100000000000000088817841970012523233890533447265625
This was taken from an article written by Bruce Dawson. it can be found here:
Doubles are not floats, so don’t compare them
I think Eric Lippert's comment on the question is actually the clearest explanation, so I'll repost it as an answer:
Suppose you are computing 1/9 in 3-digit decimal and 6-digit decimal. 0.111 < 0.111111, right?
Now suppose you are computing 6/9. 0.667 > 0.666667, right?
You can't have it that 6/9 in three digit decimal is 0.666 because that is not the closest 3-digit decimal to 6/9!
Since it can't be exactly represented, comparing 1/10 in base 2 is like comparing 1/7 in base 10.
1/7 = 0.142857142857... but comparing at different base 10 precisions (3 versus 6 decimal places) we have 0.143 > 0.142857.
Just to add to the other answers talking about IEEE-754 and x86: the issue is even more complicated than they make it seem. There is not "one" representation of 0.1 in IEEE-754 - there are two. Either rounding the last digit down or up would be valid. This difference can and does actually occur, because x86 does not use 64-bits for its internal floating-point computations; it actually uses 80-bits! This is called double extended-precision.
So, even among just x86 compilers, it sometimes happen that the same number is represented two different ways, because some computes its binary representation with 64-bits, while others use 80.
In fact, it can happen even with the same compiler, even on the same machine!
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
void foo(double x, double y)
{
if (std::cos(x) != std::cos(y)) {
std::cout << "Huh?!?\n"; //← you might end up here when x == y!!
}
}
int main()
{
foo(1.0, 1.0);
return 0;
}
See Why is cos(x) != cos(y) even though x == y? for more info.
The rank of double is greater than that of float in conversions. By doing a logical comparison, f is cast to double and maybe the implementation you are using is giving inconsistent results. If you suffix f so the compiler registers it as a float, then you get 0.00 which is false in double type. Unsuffixed floating types are double.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <float.h>
int main()
{
double d = 0.1;
float f = 0.1f;
printf("%f\n", (f > d));
return 0;
}
This question already has answers here:
strange output in comparison of float with float literal
(8 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
EDIT: There are a lot of disgruntled members here because this question had a duplicate on the site. In my defense, I tried searching for the answer FIRST, and maybe I was using poor searching keywords, but I could not find a direct, clear answer to this specific code example. Little did I know there was one out there from **2009** that would then be linked to from here.
Here's a coded example:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
float x = 0.1 * 7;
if (x == 0.7)
cout << "TRUE. \n";
else
cout << "FALSE. \n";
return 0;
}
This results in FALSE. However, when I output x, it does indeed output as 0.7. Explanation?
Please read What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic.
First of all, 0.1 is a literal of type double. The closest representable value to 0.1 in IEEE 754 double-precision is:
0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625
If you multiply that by 7, the closest representable value in IEE 754 single-precision (since you're storing it in a float) is:
0.699999988079071044921875
Which, as you can see, is almost 0.7, but not quite. This then gets converted to a double for the comparison, and you end up comparing the following two values:
0.699999988079071044921875 == 0.6999999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875
Which of course evaluates to false.
This is because numbers are stored in binary. In binary, you cannot exactly represent the fraction .1 or .7 with finitely many places, because these have repeating expansions in binary. something like 1/2 can be represented exactly with the representation .1, but .1 in decimal for instance is .0001100110011.... So, when you cut off this number, you're bound to have roundoff error.
Doubles and floats should never be compared by the == operator. Numbers are stored in memory inaccurately because in binary they don't have to have finite representation (for example 0.1).
You will see it here:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
float x = 0.1 * 7;
cout << x-0.7;
return 0;
}
The difference is NOT zero, but something very very close to zero.
Like every datatype a float is represented as binary number. For the exact representation see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_floating_point
When converting a decimal number to a floating point number by hand, you first have to convert it to a fixed point number.
Converting 0.7 to base 2 (binary):
0.7 = 0.101100110011...
As you see it has infinite digits after the comma, so when representing it as a float datatype, some digits will get cut off. This results in the number not being EXACTLY 0.7 when converting it back to decimal.
In your example the multiplication results in a different number than the literal "0.7".
To fix this: Use a epsilon when comparing equality of floats:
if (x < 0.71f && x > 0.69f)
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
strange output in comparision of float with float literal
float f = 1.1;
double d = 1.1;
if(f == d) // returns false!
Why is it so?
The important factors under consideration with float or double numbers are:
Precision & Rounding
Precision:
The precision of a floating point number is how many digits it can represent without losing any information it contains.
Consider the fraction 1/3. The decimal representation of this number is 0.33333333333333… with 3′s going out to infinity. An infinite length number would require infinite memory to be depicted with exact precision, but float or double data types typically only have 4 or 8 bytes. Thus Floating point & double numbers can only store a certain number of digits, and the rest are bound to get lost. Thus, there is no definite accurate way of representing float or double numbers with numbers that require more precision than the variables can hold.
Rounding:
There is a non-obvious differences between binary and decimal (base 10) numbers.
Consider the fraction 1/10. In decimal, this can be easily represented as 0.1, and 0.1 can be thought of as an easily representable number. However, in binary, 0.1 is represented by the infinite sequence: 0.00011001100110011…
An example:
#include <iomanip>
int main()
{
using namespace std;
cout << setprecision(17);
double dValue = 0.1;
cout << dValue << endl;
}
This output is:
0.10000000000000001
And not
0.1.
This is because the double had to truncate the approximation due to it’s limited memory, which results in a number that is not exactly 0.1. Such an scenario is called a Rounding error.
Whenever comparing two close float and double numbers such rounding errors kick in and eventually the comparison yields incorrect results and this is the reason you should never compare floating point numbers or double using ==.
The best you can do is to take their difference and check if it is less than an epsilon.
abs(x - y) < epsilon
Try running this code, the results will make the reason obvious.
#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << std::setprecision(100) << (double)1.1 << std::endl;
std::cout << std::setprecision(100) << (float)1.1 << std::endl;
std::cout << std::setprecision(100) << (double)((float)1.1) << std::endl;
}
The output:
1.100000000000000088817841970012523233890533447265625
1.10000002384185791015625
1.10000002384185791015625
Neither float nor double can represent 1.1 accurately. When you try to do the comparison the float number is implicitly upconverted to a double. The double data type can accurately represent the contents of the float, so the comparison yields false.
Generally you shouldn't compare floats to floats, doubles to doubles, or floats to doubles using ==.
The best practice is to subtract them, and check if the absolute value of the difference is less than a small epsilon.
if(std::fabs(f - d) < std::numeric_limits<float>::epsilon())
{
// ...
}
One reason is because floating point numbers are (more or less) binary fractions, and can only approximate many decimal numbers. Many decimal numbers must necessarily be converted to repeating binary "decimals", or irrational numbers. This will introduce a rounding error.
From wikipedia:
For instance, 1/5 cannot be represented exactly as a floating point number using a binary base but can be represented exactly using a decimal base.
In your particular case, a float and double will have different rounding for the irrational/repeating fraction that must be used to represent 1.1 in binary. You will be hard pressed to get them to be "equal" after their corresponding conversions have introduced different levels of rounding error.
The code I gave above solves this by simply checking if the values are within a very short delta. Your comparison changes from "are these values equal?" to "are these values within a small margin of error from each other?"
Also, see this question: What is the most effective way for float and double comparison?
There are also a lot of other oddities about floating point numbers that break a simple equality comparison. Check this article for a description of some of them:
http://www.cygnus-software.com/papers/comparingfloats/comparingfloats.htm
The IEEE 754 32-bit float can store: 1.1000000238...
The IEEE 754 64-bit double can store: 1.1000000000000000888...
See why they're not "equal"?
In IEEE 754, fractions are stored in powers of 2:
2^(-1), 2^(-2), 2^(-3), ...
1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ...
Now we need a way to represent 0.1. This is (a simplified version of) the 32-bit IEEE 754 representation (float):
2^(-4) + 2^(-5) + 2^(-8) + 2^(-9) + 2^(-12) + 2^(-13) + ... + 2^(-24) + 2^(-25) + 2^(-27)
00011001100110011001101
1.10000002384185791015625
With 64-bit double, it's even more accurate. It doesn't stop at 2^(-25), it keeps going for about twice as much. (2^(-48) + 2^(-49) + 2^(-51), maybe?)
Resources
IEEE 754 Converter (32-bit)
Floats and doubles are stored in a binary format that can not represent every number exactly (it's impossible to represent the infinitely many possible different numbers in a finite space).
As a result they do rounding. Float has to round more than double, because it is smaller, so 1.1 rounded to the nearest valid Float is different to 1.1 rounded to the nearest valud Double.
To see what numbers are valid floats and doubles see Floating Point