privacy: reach: Rename ReachLevel enum

gcc/rust/privacy/rust-privacy-ctx.h

@@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ namespace Privacy {
  */
 enum ReachLevel
 {
-  Private,
-  Public,
+  Unreachable,
+  Reachable,
 };
 
 class PrivacyContext

gcc/rust/privacy/rust-reachability.cc

@@ -56,16 +56,19 @@ ReachabilityVisitor::visit (HIR::TypeAlias &type_alias)
 void
 ReachabilityVisitor::visit (HIR::StructStruct &struct_item)
 {
-  auto struct_reach = ReachLevel::Private;
+  auto struct_reach = ReachLevel::Unreachable;
   // FIXME: This feels very wrong. Should we check for `has_visibility`
   // beforehand? Is it just private otherwise? Should the `HIR::Visibility` also
   // keep variants for private items?
   if (struct_item.get_visibility ().get_vis_type () == HIR::Visibility::NONE)
-    struct_reach = ReachLevel::Public;
+    struct_reach = ReachLevel::Reachable;
 
   // FIXME: Here we want to update only if the visibility is higher
   ctx.insert_reachability (struct_item.get_mappings (), struct_reach);
 
+  // FIXME: We need to also visit the fields as they might have their own set
+  // of reachability levels
+
   for (auto &field : struct_item.get_fields ())
     ctx.insert_reachability (field.get_mappings (), struct_reach);
 

gcc/rust/privacy/rust-reachability.h

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ class ReachabilityVisitor : public HIR::HIRVisItemVisitor
 {
 public:
   ReachabilityVisitor (PrivacyContext &ctx)
-    : current_level (ReachLevel::Private), ctx (ctx)
+    : current_level (ReachLevel::Unreachable), ctx (ctx)
   {}
 
   virtual void visit (HIR::Module &mod);