You could re-invent the wheel, as many other answers suggest. Alternately, you could use someone else's wheel -- I'd suggest Newlib's, which is BSD-licensed and intended for use on embedded systems. It properly handles negative numbers, NaNs, infinities, and cases which are not representable as integers (due to being too large), as well as doing so in an efficient manner that uses exponents and masking rather than generally-costlier floating-point operations. In addition, it's regularly tested, so you know it doesn't have glaring corner-case bugs in it.

The Newlib source can be a bit awkward to navigate, so here are the bits you want:

Float version: https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=blob;f=newlib/libm/common/sf_round.c;hb=master

Double version: https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=blob;f=newlib/libm/common/s_round.c;hb=master

Word-extraction macros defined here: https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=blob;f=newlib/libm/common/fdlibm.h;hb=master

If you need other files from there, the parent directory is this one: https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=tree;f=newlib/libm/common;hb=master

For the record, here's the code for the float version. As you can see, there's a bit of complexity required to deal with all the possible cases correctly.

float roundf(x)
{
  int signbit;
  __uint32_t w;
  /* Most significant word, least significant word. */
  int exponent_less_127;

  GET_FLOAT_WORD(w, x);

  /* Extract sign bit. */
  signbit = w & 0x80000000;

  /* Extract exponent field. */
  exponent_less_127 = (int)((w & 0x7f800000) >> 23) - 127;

  if (exponent_less_127 < 23)
    {
      if (exponent_less_127 < 0)
        {
          w &= 0x80000000;
          if (exponent_less_127 == -1)
            /* Result is +1.0 or -1.0. */
            w |= ((__uint32_t)127 << 23);
        }
      else
        {
          unsigned int exponent_mask = 0x007fffff >> exponent_less_127;
          if ((w & exponent_mask) == 0)
            /* x has an integral value. */
            return x;

          w += 0x00400000 >> exponent_less_127;
          w &= ~exponent_mask;
        }
    }
  else
    {
      if (exponent_less_127 == 128)
        /* x is NaN or infinite. */
        return x + x;
      else
        return x;
    }
  SET_FLOAT_WORD(x, w);
  return x;
}

It depends on how you want to round. Below is an example with threshold = 0.5:

#include 

int custom_round(float number) {
    // Get the integer part by truncating the float
    int int_part = (int)number;
    float fractional_part = number - int_part;
    if (fractional_part >= 0.5) {
        return int_part + 1;
    } else {
        return int_part;
    }
}

int main() {
    float num1 = 3.5;
    float num2 = 3.4;
    float num3 = -2.5;
    float num4 = -2.6;
    
    printf("custom_round(%.1f) = %d\n", num1, custom_round(num1));  // Output: custom_round(3.5) = 4
    printf("custom_round(%.1f) = %d\n", num2, custom_round(num2));  // Output: custom_round(3.4) = 3
    printf("custom_round(%.1f) = %d\n", num3, custom_round(num3));  // Output: custom_round(-2.5) = -2
    printf("custom_round(%.1f) = %d\n", num4, custom_round(num4));  // Output: custom_round(-2.6) = -3
    
    return 0;
}

To round a float in C, there are 3 <math.h> functions to meet the need. Recommend rintf().

float nearbyintf(float x);

The nearbyint functions round their argument to an integer value in floating-point format, using the current rounding direction and without raising the ‘‘inexact’’ floating point exception. C11dr §7.12.9.3 2

or

float rintf(float x);

The rint functions differ from the nearbyint functions (7.12.9.3) only in that the rint functions may raise the ‘‘inexact’’ floating-point exception if the result differs in value from the argument. C11dr §7.12.9.4 2

or

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 §7.12.9.6 2

Example

#include <fenv.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>

void rtest(const char *fname, double (*f)(double x), double x) {
  printf("Clear inexact flag       :%s\n", feclearexcept(FE_INEXACT) ? "Fail" : "Success");
  printf("Set round to nearest mode:%s\n", fesetround(FE_TONEAREST)  ? "Fail" : "Success");

  double y = (*f)(x);
  printf("%s(%f) -->  %f\n", fname,x,y);

  printf("Inexact flag             :%s\n", fetestexcept(FE_INEXACT) ? "Inexact" : "Exact");
  puts("");
}

int main(void) {
  double x = 8.5;
  rtest("nearbyint", nearbyint, x);
  rtest("rint", rint, x);
  rtest("round", round, x);
  return 0;
}

Output

Clear inexact flag       :Success
Set round to nearest mode:Success
nearbyint(8.500000) -->  8.000000
Inexact flag             :Exact

Clear inexact flag       :Success
Set round to nearest mode:Success
rint(8.500000) -->  8.000000
Inexact flag             :Inexact

Clear inexact flag       :Success
Set round to nearest mode:Success
round(8.500000) -->  9.000000
Inexact flag             :Exact

What is weak about OP's code?

(int)(num < 0 ? (num - 0.5) : (num + 0.5))

1. Should num have a value not near the int range, the cast (int) results in undefined behavior.

2. When num +/- 0.5 results in an inexact answer. This is unlikely here as 0.5 is a double causing the addition to occur at a higher precision than float. When num and 0.5 have the same precision, adding 0.5 to a number may result in numerical rounded answer. (This is not the whole number rounding of OP's post.) Example: the number just less than 0.5 should round to 0 per OP's goal, yet num + 0.5 results in an exact answer between 1.0 and the smallest double just less than 1.0. Since the exact answer is not representable, that sum rounds, typically to 1.0 leading to an incorrect answer. A similar situation occurs with large numbers.

OP's dilemma about "The above line always prints the value as 4 even when float num =4.9." is not explainable as stated. Additional code/information is needed. I suspect OP may have used int num = 4.9;.

// avoid all library calls
// Relies on UINTMAX_MAX >= FLT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_INTEGER - 1
float my_roundf(float x) {
  // Test for large values of x 
  // All of the x values are whole numbers and need no rounding
  #define FLT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_INTEGER  (FLT_RADIX/FLT_EPSILON)
  if (x >= FLT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_INTEGER) return x;
  if (x <= -FLT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_INTEGER) return x;

  // Positive numbers
  // Important: _no_ precision lost in the subtraction
  // This is the key improvement over OP's method
  if (x > 0) {
    float floor_x = (float)(uintmax_t) x;
    if (x - floor_x >= 0.5) floor_x += 1.0f;
    return floor_x;
  }

  if (x < 0) return -my_roundf(-x);
  return x; //  x is 0.0, -0.0 or NaN
}

Tested little - will do so later when I have time.

The usual solution on microcontrollers is to not do this. Decimal places are for humans, and that sort of luxury doesn't belong on embedded hardware. Heck, even binary floating point is a bit of a luxury.

The only place where you might see decimal math is in I/O operations. For those cases, it's easiest to internally work with an integer. So the range 0.0 - 6553.5 is internally represented as 0-65535. On output, you just print value/10 . value%10.