MSP430FR5994: How to change interrupt priority？

On MSP430FR5994, according to device data sheet, 9.5 Interrupt Vector Table and Signatures, the interrupt priorities are fixed.

Thanks David support and comments!

I now have two interrupts in the code, one is the ADC sampling interrupt and the other is the timer interrupt. The execution time of the ADC sampling interrupt service function is about 33ms; I set a timer interrupt every 2ms and count in the timer interrupt service function , when the count reaches 50 times, a 100ms time-out flag will be generated, and this flag will be used for timing operations later; with this setting, when the ADC sampling interrupt is executed, the low-priority timer interrupt cannot be responded to, which will cause the 100ms time base to be inaccurate.

Now I can't change the priority of timer interrupt and ADC interrupt, how can I normally enter the timer interrupt to count when executing ADC interrupt?

33ms is way to long to spend in an ISR. You should change that.

Since GIE is cleared when an ISR starts, the interrupt priority doesn't matter since no interrupts will be serviced till the ADC ISR exits.

#if defined(__TI_COMPILER_VERSION__) || defined(__IAR_SYSTEMS_ICC__)
#pragma vector=ADC12_VECTOR
__interrupt
#elif defined(__GNUC__)
__attribute__((interrupt(ADC12_VECTOR)))
#endif
void ADC12_ISR(void)
{

    static uint16_t index = 0;
    static uint8_t memory[Num_of_Results]={ADC12_B_MEMORY_0,ADC12_B_MEMORY_1,ADC12_B_MEMORY_2,ADC12_B_MEMORY_3,
                             ADC12_B_MEMORY_4,ADC12_B_MEMORY_5,ADC12_B_MEMORY_6,ADC12_B_MEMORY_7,
                             ADC12_B_MEMORY_8,ADC12_B_MEMORY_9,ADC12_B_MEMORY_10,ADC12_B_MEMORY_11,
                             ADC12_B_MEMORY_12,} ;
  switch(__even_in_range(ADC12IV,42))
  {
    case  0: break;                         // Vector  0:  No interrupt
    case  2: break;                         // Vector  2:  ADC12BMEMx Overflow
    case  4: break;                         // Vector  4:  Conversion time overflow
    case  6: break;                         // Vector  6:  ADC12BHI
    case  8: break;                         // Vector  8:  ADC12BLO
    case 10: break;                         // Vector 10:  ADC12BIN
    case 12: break;                         // Clear CPUOFF bit from 0(SR)
    case 14: break;                         // Vector 14:  ADC12BMEM1
    case 16: break;                         // Vector 16:  ADC12BMEM2
    case 18: break;                         // Vector 18:  ADC12BMEM3
    case 20: break;                         // Vector 20:  ADC12BMEM4
    case 22: break;                         // Vector 22:  ADC12BMEM5
    case 24: break;                         // Vector 24:  ADC12BMEM6
    case 26: break;                         // Vector 26:  ADC12BMEM7
    case 28: break;                         // Vector 28:  ADC12BMEM8
    case 30: break;                         // Vector 30:  ADC12BMEM9
    case 32: break;                         // Vector 32:  ADC12BMEM10
    case 34: break;                         // Vector 34:  ADC12BMEM11
    case 36:
        for(index =0;index< Num_of_Results;index++)
           {
               results[index] = ADC12_B_getResults(ADC12_B_BASE,memory[index]);
           }
        break;                         // Vector 36:  ADC12BMEM12
    case 38: break;                         // Vector 38:  ADC12BMEM13
    case 40: break;                         // Vector 40:  ADC12BMEM14
    case 42: break;                         // Vector 42:  ADC12BMEM15
    default: break;
  }
 
}

Is there any problem with writing the interrupt service function like this?

In order to solve the problem of inaccurate timer counting when the ADC is running, now I change the timer interrupt to 50ms, and at the same time read the value collected by the ADC once every 50ms, I don’t know if this is feasible

How to change the interrupt service function to reduce the interrupt execution time？

The general practice is to store the data somewhere, quickly. Then exit low power mode so that the foreground process can do the work.

But so far you haven't shown anything that should be slow. So I have no idea where you got 33ms.