Answering because all the existing answers say that it's undefined behaviour, which is not true, so I have nothing I can upvote.
In C89 (thanks to pmg for the reference to a draft standard), 5.1.2.2.3:
A return from the initial call to the
main function is
equivalent to calling the exit function with the value
returned by the main function as its argument. If the }
that terminates the main function is reached, the
termination status returned to the host environment is
unspecified.
In C99, quoting from n1256, 5.1.2.2.3:
If the return type of the main
function is a type compatible with
int, a return from the initial call to
the main function is equivalent to
calling the exit function with the
value returned by the main function as
its argument; reaching the } that
terminates the main function returns a
value of 0. If the return type is not
compatible with int, the termination
status returned to the host
environment is unspecified.
So, it's not "undefined behaviour": it behaves as if the main
function returns, but in C89 the value returned is not specified by the standard. For your example program, on your implementation, the value returned appears to consistently be 12, presumably for the reason Ben Voigt says. Since you're on linux, it's probably not a big change to compile your code as C99 (or anyway, compile it using gcc's almost-compliant C99 mode).
For any function that returns a value, other than main
, it is undefined behaviour, unless the caller doesn't use the return value (n1256, 6.9.1/12):
If the } that terminates a function is
reached, and the value of the function
call is used by the caller, the
behavior is undefined.
I'm not sure whether the initial call to main
should be mentioned as excluded from this general rule. It doesn't need to be: from the POV of the standard, that call doesn't have a caller, so I think that the value of the function call is not "used by the caller", even though it becomes the termination status for the program.