Determine if two rectangles overlap each other?

if (RectA.Left < RectB.Right && RectA.Right > RectB.Left &&
     RectA.Top > RectB.Bottom && RectA.Bottom < RectB.Top ) 

or, using Cartesian coordinates

(With X1 being left coord, X2 being right coord, increasing from left to right and Y1 being Top coord, and Y2 being Bottom coord, increasing from bottom to top -- if this is not how your coordinate system [e.g. most computers have the Y direction reversed], swap the comparisons below) ...

if (RectA.X1 < RectB.X2 && RectA.X2 > RectB.X1 &&
    RectA.Y1 > RectB.Y2 && RectA.Y2 < RectB.Y1) 

Say you have Rect A, and Rect B. Proof is by contradiction. Any one of four conditions guarantees that no overlap can exist:

• Cond1. If A's left edge is to the right of the B's right edge, - then A is Totally to right Of B
• Cond2. If A's right edge is to the left of the B's left edge, - then A is Totally to left Of B
• Cond3. If A's top edge is below B's bottom edge, - then A is Totally below B
• Cond4. If A's bottom edge is above B's top edge, - then A is Totally above B

So condition for Non-Overlap is

NON-Overlap => Cond1 Or Cond2 Or Cond3 Or Cond4

Therefore, a sufficient condition for Overlap is the opposite.

Overlap => NOT (Cond1 Or Cond2 Or Cond3 Or Cond4)

De Morgan's law says
Not (A or B or C or D) is the same as Not A And Not B And Not C And Not D
so using De Morgan, we have

Not Cond1 And Not Cond2 And Not Cond3 And Not Cond4

This is equivalent to:

• A's Left Edge to left of B's right edge, [RectA.Left < RectB.Right], and
• A's right edge to right of B's left edge, [RectA.Right > RectB.Left], and
• A's top above B's bottom, [RectA.Top > RectB.Bottom], and
• A's bottom below B's Top [RectA.Bottom < RectB.Top]

Note 1: It is fairly obvious this same principle can be extended to any number of dimensions.
Note 2: It should also be fairly obvious to count overlaps of just one pixel, change the < and/or the > on that boundary to a <= or a >=.
Note 3: This answer, when utilizing Cartesian coordinates (X, Y) is based on standard algebraic Cartesian coordinates (x increases left to right, and Y increases bottom to top). Obviously, where a computer system might mechanize screen coordinates differently, (e.g., increasing Y from top to bottom, or X From right to left), the syntax will need to be adjusted accordingly/

struct rect
{
    int x;
    int y;
    int width;
    int height;
};

bool valueInRange(int value, int min, int max)
{ return (value >= min) && (value <= max); }

bool rectOverlap(rect A, rect B)
{
    bool xOverlap = valueInRange(A.x, B.x, B.x + B.width) ||
                    valueInRange(B.x, A.x, A.x + A.width);

    bool yOverlap = valueInRange(A.y, B.y, B.y + B.height) ||
                    valueInRange(B.y, A.y, A.y + A.height);

    return xOverlap && yOverlap;
}

struct Rect
{
    Rect(int x1, int x2, int y1, int y2)
    : x1(x1), x2(x2), y1(y1), y2(y2)
    {
        assert(x1 < x2);
        assert(y1 < y2);
    }

    int x1, x2, y1, y2;
};

bool
overlap(const Rect &r1, const Rect &r2)
{
    // The rectangles don't overlap if
    // one rectangle's minimum in some dimension 
    // is greater than the other's maximum in
    // that dimension.

    bool noOverlap = r1.x1 > r2.x2 ||
                     r2.x1 > r1.x2 ||
                     r1.y1 > r2.y2 ||
                     r2.y1 > r1.y2;

    return !noOverlap;
}

This is a very fast way to check with C++ if two rectangles overlap:

return std::max(rectA.left, rectB.left) < std::min(rectA.right, rectB.right)
    && std::max(rectA.top, rectB.top) < std::min(rectA.bottom, rectB.bottom);

It works by calculating the left and right borders of the intersecting rectangle, and then comparing them: if the right border is equal to or less than the left border, it means that the intersection is empty and therefore the rectangles do not overlap; otherwise, it tries again with the top and bottom borders.

What is the advantage of this method over the conventional alternative of 4 comparisons? It's about how modern processors are designed. They have something called branch prediction, which works well when the result of a comparison is always the same, but have a huge performance penalty otherwise. However, in the absence of branch instructions, the CPU performs quite well. By calculating the borders of the intersection instead of having two separate checks for each axis, we're saving two branches, one per pair.

It is possible that the four comparisons method outperforms this one, if the first comparison has a high chance of being false. That is very rare, though, because it means that the second rectangle is most often on the left side of the first rectangle, and not on the right side or overlapping it; and most often, you need to check rectangles on both sides of the first one, which normally voids the advantages of branch prediction.

This method can be improved even more, depending on the expected distribution of rectangles:

• If you expect the checked rectangles to be predominantly to the left or right of each other, then the method above works best. This is probably the case, for example, when you're using the rectangle intersection to check collisions for a game, where the game objects are predominantly distributed horizontally (e.g. a SuperMarioBros-like game).
• If you expect the checked rectangles to be predominantly to the top or bottom of each other, e.g. in an Icy Tower type of game, then checking top/bottom first and left/right last will probably be faster:

return std::max(rectA.top, rectB.top) < std::min(rectA.bottom, rectB.bottom)
    && std::max(rectA.left, rectB.left) < std::min(rectA.right, rectB.right);

• If the probability of intersecting is close to the probability of not intersecting, however, it's better to have a completely branchless alternative:

return std::max(rectA.left, rectB.left) < std::min(rectA.right, rectB.right)
     & std::max(rectA.top, rectB.top) < std::min(rectA.bottom, rectB.bottom);

(Note the change of && to a single &)

Ask yourself the opposite question: How can I determine if two rectangles do not intersect at all? Obviously, a rectangle A completely to the left of rectangle B does not intersect. Also if A is completely to the right. And similarly if A is completely above B or completely below B. In any other case A and B intersect.

What follows may have bugs, but I am pretty confident about the algorithm:

struct Rectangle { int x; int y; int width; int height; };

bool is_left_of(Rectangle const & a, Rectangle const & b) {
   if (a.x + a.width <= b.x) return true;
   return false;
}
bool is_right_of(Rectangle const & a, Rectangle const & b) {
   return is_left_of(b, a);
}

bool not_intersect( Rectangle const & a, Rectangle const & b) {
   if (is_left_of(a, b)) return true;
   if (is_right_of(a, b)) return true;
   // Do the same for top/bottom...
 }

bool intersect(Rectangle const & a, Rectangle const & b) {
  return !not_intersect(a, b);
}

In the question, you link to the maths for when rectangles are at arbitrary angles of rotation. If I understand the bit about angles in the question however, I interpret that all rectangles are perpendicular to one another.

A general knowing the area of overlap formula is:

Using the example:

   1   2   3   4   5   6

1  +---+---+
   |       |   
2  +   A   +---+---+
   |       | B     |
3  +       +   +---+---+
   |       |   |   |   |
4  +---+---+---+---+   +
               |       |
5              +   C   +
               |       |
6              +---+---+

1) collect all the x coordinates (both left and right) into a list, then sort it and remove duplicates

1 3 4 5 6

2) collect all the y coordinates (both top and bottom) into a list, then sort it and remove duplicates

1 2 3 4 6

3) create a 2D array by number of gaps between the unique x coordinates * number of gaps between the unique y coordinates.

4 * 4

4) paint all the rectangles into this grid, incrementing the count of each cell it occurs over:

   1   3   4   5   6

1  +---+
   | 1 | 0   0   0
2  +---+---+---+
   | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0
3  +---+---+---+---+
   | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
4  +---+---+---+---+
     0   0 | 1 | 1 |
6          +---+---+

5) As you paint the rectangles, its easy to intercept the overlaps.

struct Rect
{
   Rect(int x1, int x2, int y1, int y2)
   : x1(x1), x2(x2), y1(y1), y2(y2)
   {
       assert(x1 < x2);
       assert(y1 < y2);
   }

   int x1, x2, y1, y2;
};

//some area of the r1 overlaps r2
bool overlap(const Rect &r1, const Rect &r2)
{
    return r1.x1 < r2.x2 && r2.x1 < r1.x2 &&
           r1.y1 < r2.y2 && r2.x1 < r1.y2;
}

//either the rectangles overlap or the edges touch
bool touch(const Rect &r1, const Rect &r2)
{
    return r1.x1 <= r2.x2 && r2.x1 <= r1.x2 &&
           r1.y1 <= r2.y2 && r2.x1 <= r1.y2;
}

Don't think of coordinates as indicating where pixels are. Think of them as being between the pixels. That way, the area of a 2x2 rectangle should be 4, not 9.

bool bOverlap = !((A.Left >= B.Right || B.Left >= A.Right)
               && (A.Bottom >= B.Top || B.Bottom >= A.Top));

I have implemented a C# version, it is easily converted to C++.

public bool Intersects ( Rectangle rect )
{
  float ulx = Math.Max ( x, rect.x );
  float uly = Math.Max ( y, rect.y );
  float lrx = Math.Min ( x + width, rect.x + rect.width );
  float lry = Math.Min ( y + height, rect.y + rect.height );

  return ulx <= lrx && uly <= lry;
}

struct point { int x, y; };

struct rect { point tl, br; }; // top left and bottom right points

// return true if rectangles overlap
bool overlap(const rect &a, const rect &b)
{
    return a.tl.x <= b.br.x && a.br.x >= b.tl.x && 
           a.tl.y >= b.br.y && a.br.y <= b.tl.y;
}