I am happy that the reviewer comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript. However I have a number of remaining points for consideration which are given below.

1. The GMD code policy indicates that, if code cannot be publicly released, that reasons for this be provided. Please can you add this to the “Code Availability” section of the article.

2. I think it would be helpful to add further details regarding previous developments, mentioned at the top of page 2. In particular a summary of the different aspects, developed or described in the supplied references, could be supplied here.

3. The comment regarding performance, starting at the end of line 25 on page 18, seems somewhat speculative without supporting performance comparisons.

4. The sentences starting on lines 10 and 14 of page 11, line 17 of page 17, lines 12-13 of page 18, lines 1 and 9 of page 19, the end of line 16 of page 20, and the sentence on line 28 of page 22, are a bit informal and should be rephrased.

5. It would be helpful to define parallel efficiency on page 18.

With these changes I am happy to accept for publication.