privacy: Rename "accessibility levels" to "effective visibilities"

[petrochenkov]

And a couple of other naming and comment tweaks.

Related to #48054

For enum Level I initially used naming enum EffectiveVisibilityLevel, but it was too long and inconvenient because it's used pretty often.
So I shortened it to just Level, if it needs to be used from some context where this name would be ambiguous, then it can be imported with renaming like use rustc_middle::privacy::Level as EffVisLevel or something.

[rust-highfive]

r? @jackh726

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[petrochenkov]

cc @Bryanskiy

[camsteffen]

How about Visibilities and VisibilityLevel?

[petrochenkov]

@camsteffen

How about Visibilities and VisibilityLevel?

To avoid confusing effective visibilities with "primitive"/"basic" ty::Visibilityes.
A map that contains EffectiveVisibilityes -> EffectiveVisibilities.

As for Level, I explained it in the top comment, it's mainly for brevity because it's commonly used.

[camsteffen]

I see. Maybe Visibility could be named VisibilityDecl?

[petrochenkov]

Ping @jackh726, it's been almost a month.

[jackh726]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 8e84ee5 has been approved by jackh726

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[petrochenkov]

@bors r=jackh726

[bors]

📌 Commit fba05d139d8641e4b955dc2659820229e21f2f09 has been approved by jackh726

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[petrochenkov]

@bors r=jackh726

[bors]

📌 Commit 34eb73c has been approved by jackh726

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Dylan-DPC]

@bors rollup=iffy

[petrochenkov]

Not sure why this PR was marked as iffy, it can be rolled up.
The only danger here is potential merge conflicts.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 34eb73c with merge 33b55ac...

[Dylan-DPC]

yeh it was marked as iffy because of the chance of merge conflicts :P

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing 33b55ac to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (33b55ac): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.4%, -1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-4.0%, -0.4%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.4%, -1.2%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-3.4%, -2.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.7%, -2.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[lqd]

Note for weekly triage: the wins could be bimodal noise on these benchmarks. They're the opposite of the previous PR on these 14 benchmarks, in the second spike below.

[petrochenkov]

This PR only contains renamings, so it's certainly noise.