flambda-backend: Add documentation for mixed blocks (#2667)

* Add mixed block docs

* Reword

* Update ocaml/jane/doc/extensions/unboxed-types/index.md

Co-authored-by: Xavier Clerc <xclerc@users.noreply.github.com>

* Suggestions from review

* Fix from @TheNumbat's review

---------

Co-authored-by: Xavier Clerc <xclerc@users.noreply.github.com>

Author: ncik-roberts

jane/doc/extensions/unboxed-types/index.md

@@ -284,4 +284,148 @@ Here's the list of primitives that currently support `[@layout_poly]`:
 * `%array_safe_get`
 * `%array_safe_set`
 * `%array_unsafe_get`
-* `%array_unsafe_set`
+* `%array_unsafe_set`
+
+# Using unboxed types in structures
+
+Unboxed types can usually be put in structures, though there are some restrictions.
+
+These structures may contain unboxed types, but have some restrictions on field
+orders:
+  * Records
+  * Constructors
+  
+Unboxed numbers can't be put in these structures:
+  * Constructors with inline record fields
+  * Exceptions
+  * Extensible variant constructors
+  * Top-level fields of modules
+  * Tuples
+  
+There aren't fundamental issues with the structures that lack support. They will
+just take some work to implement.
+
+Here's an example of a record with an unboxed field. We call such a record 
+a "mixed record".
+
+```ocaml
+type t =
+  { str : string;
+    i : int;
+    f : float#;
+  }
+```
+
+## Restrictions on field ordering
+
+The below is written about record fields but equally applies to constructor
+arguments.
+
+Suppose a record contains any unboxed field `fld` whose layout is not `value`[^or-combination-of-values]. Then, the following restriction applies: All
+fields occurring after `fld` in the record must be "flat", i.e. the GC can
+skip looking at them. The only options for flat fields are immediates (i.e. things
+represented as ints at runtime) and other unboxed numbers.
+
+[^or-combination-of-values]: Technically, there are some non-value layouts that don't hit this restriction, like unboxed products and unboxed sums consisting only of values.
+
+The following definition is rejected, as the boxed field `s : string` appears
+after the unboxed float field `f`:
+
+```ocaml
+type t_rejected =
+  { f : float#;
+    s : string;
+  }
+  (* Error: Expected all flat fields after non-value field, f,
+            but found boxed field, s. *)
+```
+
+The only relaxation of the above restriction is for records that consist
+solely of `float` and `float#` fields. Any ordering of `float` and `float#`
+fields is permitted. The "flat float record optimization" applies to any
+such record—all of the fields are stored flat, even the `float` ones
+that will require boxing upon projection. The ordering restriction is relaxed
+in this case to provide a better migration story for all-`float` records
+to which the flat float record optimization currently applies.
+
+```ocaml
+type t_flat_float =
+  { x1 : float;
+    x2 : float#;
+    x3 : float;
+  }
+```
+
+The ordering restriction has to do with the "mixed block" runtime
+representation. Read on for more detail about that.
+
+## Generic operations aren't supported
+
+Some operations built in to the OCaml runtime aren't supported for structures
+containing unboxed types.
+
+These operations aren't supported:
+  * polymorphic comparison and equality
+  * polymorphic hash
+  * marshaling
+  
+These operations raise an exception at runtime, similar to how polymorphic
+comparison raises when called on a function.
+
+You should use ppx-derived versions of these operations instead.
+
+## Runtime representation: mixed blocks
+
+As a general principle: The compiler should not change the user-specified
+field ordering when deciding the runtime representation.
+
+Abiding by this principle allows you to write C bindings and
+predict hardware cache performance.
+
+A structure containing unboxed types is represented at runtime as a "mixed
+block". A mixed block always consists of fields the GC can-or-must scan followed by
+fields the GC can-or-must skip[^can-or-must]. The garbage collector must be kept
+informed of which fields of the block it should scan. A portion of the header
+word is reserved to track the length of the prefix of the block that should be
+scanned by the garbage collector.
+
+[^can-or-must]: "Can-or-must" is a bit of a mouthful, but it captures the right nuance. Pointer values *must* be scanned, unboxed number fields *must* be skipped, and immediate values *can* be scanned or skipped.
+
+The ordering constraint on structure fields is a reflection of the same
+ordering restriction in the runtime representation. 
+
+## C bindings for mixed blocks
+
+The implementation of field layout in a mixed block is not finalized. For example, we'd like for int32 fields to be packed efficiently (two to a word) on 64 bit platforms. Currently that's not the case: each one takes up a word.
+
+Users who write C bindings might want to be notified when we change this layout. To ensure that your code will need to be updated when the layout changes, use the `Assert_mixed_block_layout_v#` family of macros. For example,
+
+```
+Assert_mixed_block_layout_v1;
+```
+
+Write the above in statement context, i.e. either at the top-level of a file or
+within a function.
+
+Here's a full example. Say you're writing C bindings against this OCaml type:
+
+```ocaml
+(** foo.ml *)
+type t =
+  { x : int32#;
+    y : int32#;
+  }
+```
+
+Here is the recommend way to access fields:
+
+```c
+Assert_mixed_block_layout_v1;
+#define Foo_t_x(foo) (*(int32_t*)&Field(foo, 0))
+#define Foo_t_y(foo) (*(int32_t*)&Field(foo, 1))
+```
+
+We would bump the version number in either of these cases, which would prompt you to think about the code:
+
+  * We change what word half the int32 is stored in
+  * We start packing int32s more efficiently