We have use cases of both dynamic and static linkage for the target build that we have not seen any issues with.
Are you building with "mingw32" as the target (not as the SDK), and it works there? I wonder why it only fails for the SDK build and not the target build? If that is truly the case, then yes I suppose it should be the "sdkmingw32" override. The strange thing about that (and why I thought it was incorrect) is that we have a few recipes that disable shared libraries and/or enable static with just the "mingw32" override, which is why I assumed it was a general limitation of MinGW, not just the SDK. I looked through the recipes, and it does seem more apparent that it is inconsistent, with a few recipe using "mingw32", a few using "class-nativesdk:mingw32", and a few using "sdkmingw32".
I see two classes of problems based on my engagement with the mingw32. Some recipes just don't build without using the static method for the SDK and the target both. (abseil-cpp is one of them)
The nativesdk problem for grpc and protobuf is a silent failure. Even though we are able to build the binary, we get a binary that just doesn't work on windows. (crashes upon execution)
I still would like to be able to static/dynamic link grpc/protobuf for my target using the SDK.
RIght, the "mingw32" override shouldn't affect what you do with the *target* unless your target is MinGW; I'm not sure if anyone is actually doing that, most SDKs target Linux for ARM, Linux for AArch64, Linux for x86, etc.
What is your target?
It's important to remember that the recipe can be built differently for the SDK vs the target :)
Anyway, please send a V4 if it needs to be changed, and I apologize for changing it unnecessarily :)
